SG: It is submitted that issue of basic structure has been discussed right from Keshavananda Bharti where the position emerges...I won't read but a comparison between the level of basic structure defined and what we have done - we have just added a level for economic rights.
SG reads from a judgement: This is what Mr. MK Nambiar said. He was a great scholar and also the father of AG Venugopal.
SG: When it comes into its functional form- when it is implemented, suppose it is wrongly implemented, your Lordships can wash it. Someone challenging the implementation is permissible. But based on apprehensions on what would happen if they're implemented, that can't be a ground
SG: Basic features aren't general constitutional rules but only those which are central to the constitution. Identifying basic features isn't by identifying best features but the central features.
SG: It should completely change the identity to scrutinize the constitutional amendment.
J Bhat: You are right that certain amendments can strengthen the constitution. But does it destroy the constitution? RTE, you're giving it voice in FRs, it was in directive principles.
SG: Yes! It doesn't remove the leg of the chair
J Bhat: Mr. Palkiwala said in Minerva Mills- he gave an example that instead of 2/3rd majority in both houses, it should be 98%. You can't trace even federalism in preamble yet it is in basic structure.
SG: This is what Justice Sikri said that Keshavananda Bharti- It's like four legs of the chair. Unless you remove one leg and it stops being a chair, it's not to be struck down.
SG: This would be my quintessential submission- A constitutional amendment may even touch upon a basic structure, hypothetically, but unless it is shown that it alters the basic structure, it cannot be struck down.
Bench discusses.