Basic structure of doctrine

part of the constitution (incl. FRs also)
MENT, using Ast. 368, can amend any

B ASIC STRUCNRE butno affecting the "BASIC STRUCTURE"
/SC has notdefined/clarified
of the constitution.
- butwith case/case basis few

CONSTITUTION
-

meof
of Const.)
OF
is
have
emerged as



cast. Isov, Demo, Republic nature
I
Secularism Federal character
punity/aeety of 1 Welfare Recall
FR v/s. DPSP
Not exactly be by
stood cases involving
Response
can
Govt.
-




mentia
n samino
FR/DPSP FR amenability
FR Amenable -> 1st Act(1951) => This law
c. A. effectively curtailed "MCHT TO PROPETY.
st c.A. Actwas sch.,
BA, BIB)
Thus challenged in COURT nextcase "stay in case (1951).
challenged
->




Amendable time
S under verdictwas favourable to Govt. of India that
at
Art 368
4tc.A. Act (19554112RC. A. Act (1964)
Function of the constitution:




n a
unsameene
[Art 368.) Art 13.




man
-




gasmaincasesaonEnersos) Amerable
was
inn a
FR Not
CFR can't be amended to
O
implementDPSP)
-



(SCV)
is a law in an e


Bill ↳(SX)
amendable
enawe tall as re ↑FR
=




inautome
}*dena
meet it
area
a
- Ant-368 noti nambition
preamble part of
I law under tht 13. ->
↳ Reviewed 24M 125th
->


const
"Basic structure" doctrine ->
FR can be amended.
C.A. Act
-




24 Apr. 1973
verdict= 1971
goes out.
so
31C comes 14
->




42ndC.A. Actwas
passed by
->
Govt.
out.

(39(b)/3alawthee
31 comes 14 goes
① "Basic structure" doctrine (v) response
-




in to KB case verdict.

tap ERVA RILLS Case & Judicial Review be
can't taken
abrogatethe
(1980)
TryimplementingPPSP.
Basic statue
away?
-

o

⑬ Power under Art 368 a limited
BED Isofoundeden
is

power. -

FR
enjoys supremacy over DPSP


Asco.
·1 Recall
all
Chotesm
Reforms certain
laws were
challenged to be
HeadFair
state
to JUDICIAL
Related REVIEW
Cass vicrative of constr psor? & to ensure thatthisdoesult
ene
This is impt
concept the point that laws were
for

schedule to save them
insected regularly in 5th ralpenist cost.Amendment
was a
enacted and thisadded a new


from being challenged on also unconstitutionality




*
A BR
SCHEDULE
hotlawIONS thiste

She
3 abridgeaneatanatitviolatesthe*


wasinthe
animate an
RSt,
Fatin.
is
2007 Esc 351-
5
"No BlanketImmunity"from JR
2) April 1973 5 th
24 3t law, order, cost. Amenoment
of the laws placed in it
schedule. -> open to challenge.
"BASK STRUCTURE"violate 5 & put in ixt schedule


pants"as well
Apply
"eate
inthe
email
(Act14/19/21)
3) 31 at SET 5t ->
Trio of FR


a)a
BEA already sestate
at itsch law at validity all

38 principles 30 challenge at 41sit 445 / (unless ixtsch.2n14/19735 aTh
3law are not validated)
)RIGHT
Test = (DirectIMPACT & EFFECT) x2) ESSENCE
OFRIGHTS TeSAWSEARCH
AGAIN
form of law/amenomentis notrelevant form of the law/amenementis
-


matter
-> ->
- >



Abolition of Zamindari such law.
but
consequence (Impact) of the relevant/determinative factor.
->

t he
system