Advertisement

Constitutional Falsehoods: The Fourth Judges Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine in India

  • Chintan ChandrachudEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 68)

Abstract

What impact does India’s acclaimed “basic structure” doctrine have on the text of the Constitution? Constitutional theorists have long neglected this question in favour of debates surrounding the implications of the doctrine on separation of powers, popular sovereignty and the role of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. Over the years, the Indian Supreme Court has struck down multiple provisions of the Constitution on basic structure grounds. These provisions have formally remained part of the text, producing constitutional falsehoods—significant disjunctures between text and practice. By considerably extending the contours of the basic structure doctrine, the Indian Supreme Court’s decision in the Fourth Judges Case exacerbates the potential for these falsehoods. This chapter considers how these falsehoods have arisen, the attempts to redress them, and what they mean for constitutional interpretation outside of the courts.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Mihika Poddar of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, for research assistance.

References

  1. Abeyratne R (2017) Upholding judicial supremacy in India: the NJAC judgment in comparative perspective, George Wash Law Rev 49:101, 129–130Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman B (2007) The living constitution (2007) Harvard Law Rev 120:1738, 1744Google Scholar
  3. Albert R (2015) How unwritten constitutional norms change written constitutions. Dublin Univ Law J 38(2):387Google Scholar
  4. Andhyarujina TR (2011) The Kesavananda Bharati case: the untold story of struggle for supremacy by supreme court and parliament, Universal Law Publishing, pp 63–7Google Scholar
  5. Balkin JM (2009) Fidelity to text and principle. In: Balkin JM, Riva BS (eds) The constitution in 2020, Oxford University Press, p 21Google Scholar
  6. Baxi U (2016) Demosprudence and socially responsible/response-able criticism: the njac decision and beyond NUJS Law Rev 9:152, 157Google Scholar
  7. Chandrachud C (2015a) Debating the NJAC judgment of the supreme court of India: three dimensions’ UK constitutional law blog, 3 Nov 2015Google Scholar
  8. Chandrachud C (2015b) Interpretive remedies in NJAC case. The Hindu, 31 July 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/interpretive-remedies-in-njac-case/article7482864.ece
  9. Chandrachud C (2016) Interpretation. In: Choudhry S, Khosla M, Mehta PB (eds) The oxford handbook of the Indian constitution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandrachud C (2017) Balanced constitutionalism: courts and legislatures in India and the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, p 44Google Scholar
  11. Field O (1926) Effect of an unconstitutional statute. Indiana Law J 1:1, 13Google Scholar
  12. Gardner J (2011) Can there be a written constitution? Oxford Stud Philos Law 1:162Google Scholar
  13. Ginsburg T, Elkins Z, Melton J (2007) The lifespan of written constitutions, American law and economics association annual meetings working paper 33Google Scholar
  14. Ginsburg T, Elkins Z, Melton J (2009) The endurance of national constitutions. CUP, 48Google Scholar
  15. Seervai HM (1996) Constitutional law of India, 4th edn. N.M. Tripathi, p 3114Google Scholar
  16. Jacob A (1987) Government’s power to nullify andhra pradesh administrative tribunal’s orders ultra vires the amending power of parliament. J Indian Law Inst 29:94, 95Google Scholar
  17. Jacobsohn GJ (2005) The wheel of law: India’s secularism in comparative constitutional context. Princeton, p. 140Google Scholar
  18. Khosla M (2016) Constitutional amendment. In: Choudhry S, Mehta PB (eds) The oxford handbook of the Indian constitution. Oxford University Press, p 235Google Scholar
  19. Krishnaswamy S (2009) Democracy and constitutionalism in India—a study of the basic structure doctrine, Oxford University Press, p 42Google Scholar
  20. Kumar V (2007) Basic structure doctrine of the Indian constitution: doctrine of constitutionally controlled governance. J Indian Law Inst 49:365Google Scholar
  21. Mehta PB (2005) The inner conflict of constitutionalism: judicial review and the basic structure. In: Hassan Z et al (eds) India’s living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies. Anthem, p 188Google Scholar
  22. Nariman FS (2006) The silences in our constitutional law. SCC J 15(2)Google Scholar
  23. Palkhivala N (1980) Rekindling the light of the constitution. Indian Express, 16 May 1980Google Scholar
  24. Powell HJ (1986) Parchment matters: a mediation on the constitution as a text. Iowa Law Rev 71:1427, 1429Google Scholar
  25. Ramachandran R (2001) The supreme court and the basic structure doctrine. In: Kirpal BN et al (eds) Supreme but not Infallible: essays in honour of the supreme court of India, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality, Oxford University Press, p 214Google Scholar
  27. Sathe SP (2007) From positivism to structuralism. In: Golsworthy J (ed) Interpreting constitutions: a comparative study, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Sudarshan R (2005) “Stateness” and “Democracy” in India’s constitution’. In: Hassan Z et al (ed) India’s living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies, Anthem, p 167Google Scholar
  29. Thiruvengadam AK (2016) Tribunals. In: Choudhry S, Khosla M, Mehta PB (eds) The oxford handbook of the Indian constitution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Tripathi PK (1974) Kesavananda bharati v state of Kerala: who wins? SCC J 1:3Google Scholar
  31. Tushnet M (2009a) Citizen as lawyer, lawyer as citizen. William Mary Law Rev 50:1379, 1383Google Scholar
  32. Tushnet M (2009b) Citizen as lawyer, lawyer as citizen. William Mary Law Rev 50:1379, 1393Google Scholar
  33. Venkatraman S (1960) The status of an unconstitutional statute. J Indian Law Inst 2:401, 406Google Scholar
  34. Waldron J (2006) The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law J 115:1346, 1354Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLPLondonUK

Personalised recommendations