Statute Cannot Be Struck Down On Ground Of Violation Of Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court

The Constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged on the sole ground that it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution, held the Supreme Court in the case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.

The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the Allahabad High Court striking down the statute on the ground that it violated the Basic Structure feature of secularism.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that a specific violation of the Part 3 of the Constitution or lack of legislative competence must be established to strike down a statute, instead of a broad statement that it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution. While Constitutional amendments can be tested on the Basic Structure Doctrine, ordinary statutes cannot be.

"A statute can be declared ultra vires on two grounds alone: (i) it is beyond the ambit of the legislative competence of the legislature; or (ii) it violates Part III or any other provision of the Constitution," wrote CJI DY Chandrachud in the judgment referring to various precedents such as State of A P v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709.

In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) 4 SCC 608, it was held that the validity of a statute cannot be tested for violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that ordinary legislation cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. Statutes, including State legislation, can only be challenged for violating the provisions of the Constitution. However, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench(Chief Justice Khehar's judgment) applied the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of Parliamentary legislation.

In the NJAC case, Justice Khehar built upon his reasoning in Madras Bar Association. However, Justice Lokur differed to hold that a statute cannot be challenged for violating the basic structure doctrine.

After discussing the above precedents, CJI Chandrachud stated :

"From the above discussion, it can be concluded that a statute can be struck down only for the violation of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution or for being without legislative competence. The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication. Recently, this Court has accepted that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute for violation of the basic structure is a technical aspect because the infraction has to be traced to the express provisions of the Constitution. Hence, in a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism."

The judgment held :

"The High Court erred in holding that a statute is bound to be struck down if it is violative of the basic structure. Invalidation of a statute on the grounds of violation of secularism has to be traced to express provisions of the Constitution. Further, the fact that the State legislature has established a Board to recognise and regulate Madarsa education is not violative of Article 14. The Madarsa Act furthers substantive equality."

Case details : Anjum Kadari and another v. Union of India and others Diary No. 14432-2024, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India SLP(C) No. 7821/2024 and connected matters.