New Delhi, 9 August 2023: The Basic Structure Doctrine was brought up in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in response to a comment made in Parliament on Monday by Ranjan Gogoi, a former Chief Justice of India and candidate for the Rajya Sabha.
Senior attorney Kapil Sibal spoke before a five-judge Constitution Bench considering petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370. He added, “One of your esteemed colleagues has said that, in fact, Basic Structure theory is also doubtful.”
Justice Gogoi’s remarks in Rajya Sabha that the Basic Structure Doctrine developed by the SC has a “debatable jurisprudential basis” were clearly the subject of Sibal’s allusion, even if he did not specifically mention the latter.
The Chief Justice of India responded to Sibal’s remarks by saying, “Mr. Sibal, if we refer to a colleague, we have to refer to a sitting colleague. They become opinions rather than laws once we stop being judges.”
“But I’m surprised,” Sibal added.
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, jumped in to remind Sibal that “Parliament does not discuss what goes on in the court” and that the courts had to refrain from talking about what is debated in Parliament.
Mehta claimed Gogoi “has the freedom of expression” to express himself in whatever he pleases. The S-G stated that “it is that place where he should have expressed his views on Basic Structure” and added that “Sibal is responding to the Parliamentary debate here because he was not possibly in Parliament yesterday.”
Sibal stated that “we are starting a debate on that because of this majoritarian culture again” in response to a query about whether the revisions made to Article 370 were an act of majoritarianism. “My view is clear because it is the court’s view,” he declared. I’m limited to that. I work for the court as an officer. I hold that constitutional perspective in court, but outside of it, I might hold a different one.
Gogoi objected to the Opposition’s use of the Basic Structure Doctrine on Monday during a Rajya Sabha debate over the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023, stating that “Tehmtan Andhyarujina, the former Solicitor General of India, wrote a book on the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case. After reading the book, in my opinion, the idea of the Basic Structure of the Constitution has a highly questionable legal foundation.”
Ultimately, this debate on the Basic Structure Doctrine transcends a mere legal or political argument; it epitomizes the ongoing dialogue between institutions, the evolving nature of constitutional interpretations, and the complex interplay of perspectives that shape the course of a nation. As the echoes of these discussions reverberate across legal corridors and parliamentary chambers, they serve as a reminder of the delicate balance that must be maintained to uphold the tenets of democracy and justice.
