The Supreme Court of India enunciated the Doctrine of Basic Structure of…

Concept: The Doctrine of Basic Structure holds that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited — an amendment may alter or repeal any provision, but it cannot damage or destroy the Constitution's 'basic structure' (its essential, identity-defining features). This subjects every constitutional amendment to judicial review on that specific ground.

Application: The scope of the amending power evolved through a sequence of Supreme Court rulings before this doctrine was finally laid down:

1. Shankari Prasad Case (1951): the Court held that the word 'law' in Article 13 does not cover a constitutional amendment, so Parliament could amend any Fundamental Right under Article 368 without restriction.

2. Sajjan Singh Case (1965): the Court reaffirmed the Shankari Prasad position that Fundamental Rights could be amended, though two judges recorded doubts about placing the amending power entirely beyond judicial scrutiny.

3. Golak Nath Case (1967): the Court reversed course and held that a constitutional amendment IS 'law' under Article 13, so Parliament could not amend or abridge any Fundamental Right at all — an absolute bar.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): a 13-judge bench overruled the absolute bar from Golak Nath, holding that Parliament CAN amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but subject to a new limit — no amendment may damage or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. This 1973 ruling is where the Doctrine of Basic Structure was first laid down.

Cross-check: Of the four rulings, only the 1973 judgment introduces a basic-structure limitation on the amending power; the three earlier cases either permitted unrestricted amendment of Fundamental Rights or barred it outright, with no basic-structure concept in either.