Law validity can’t be challenged for Basic Structure’s violation

Sub : Polity

Sec: Constitution

Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be applied to invalidate ordinary legislation.
The Court emphasized that the validity of a law cannot be challenged purely on the grounds of it violating the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.

About the case:

The judgment came in a case regarding the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004, which was being contested for allegedly violating the principle of secularism.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud upheld the State’s power to legislate and regulate madrasas, rejecting the claim that it violated the Basic Structure.

Observations by the court:

Basic Structure doctrine comprises undefined concepts, such as secularism, democracy, and federalism, which are subjective and can lead to uncertainty in judicial review if applied to ordinary legislation.
The court emphasized that laws must be tested against specific provisions of the Constitution rather than abstract principles like secularism.
It also stated that if a law is challenged for violating secularism, it must be demonstrated that the law violates specific constitutional provisions related to secularism.

Basic Structure Doctrine:

The doctrine, first articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), holds that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution, like democracy, federalism, and secularism, form its Basic Structure and cannot be altered by Parliament.

Reference to Raj Narain Case (1975):

The CJI referred to the Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case, in which the Basic Structure doctrine was applied for the first time. The case was a significant turning point where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment.
The judges in the Raj Narain case had distinguished between an ordinary statute and a constitutional amendment, suggesting that the Basic Structure doctrine is more relevant to amendments than ordinary laws.

Implications of the ruling:

The ruling makes it clear that while the Basic Structure doctrine is crucial for constitutional amendments, it does not extend to the evaluation of ordinary laws passed by the legislature.
This decision reinforces the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature, ensuring that the courts do not overstep by striking down laws based on abstract constitutional concepts.
This judgment narrows the scope of the Basic Structure doctrine by restricting its application to constitutional amendments and not to ordinary laws.