The article "Vicissitudes and Limitations of the Doctrine of Basic Structure" by Setu Gupta, which appeared in the ILI Law Review's Winter 2016 issue, will be summarised and examined in this response paper. The article explores the history, development, and present status of Indian constitutional law's basic structure concept.

An introduction to basic structure and its importance in Indian constitutional law opens the article. The beginnings of the concept are then traced by the author to a 1965 speech by Professor Dietrich Conrad, which posed significant queries regarding the boundaries of the amending power under article 368 of the Constitution. The argument put up by the author is that the Indian judiciary did not create the idea of basic structure; rather, it was compelled to draw inspiration from a civil law system when the Indian Constitution's drafters failed to go outside of Common law nations.

The Supreme Court of India established the idea of basic structure, which maintains that the amending authority of Parliament cannot change or eliminate some essential elements of the Constitution. These characteristics include the Constitution's primacy, the judiciary's independence, the State's secular character, and citizens' fundamental rights. Since its initial articulation in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, the concept has been crucial in maintaining the delicate balance of power and the necessary checks and balances that ensure powera democratic system operates smoothly.

Further the article talks about how the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973 helped to legitimise the theory of basic structure. The case was a challenge to the Constitution's 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments, which changed the way the Parliament and the judiciary interacted. In a 7�6 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental framework of the Constitution could not be changed or eliminated and that the amending power under article 368 was subject to implied limits. According to the author, the Kesavananda Bharati case resulted in a historic ruling that upheld the value of the rule of law and the judiciary's independence in addition to legitimising the basic structure theory.

The author also explores how successive governments and political parties have attempted to alter the notion of basic structure. The author claims that these attempts were motivated by a desire to concentrate power in the hands of the government and weaken the judiciary's independence. The author references the 42nd Amendment, which was passed in 1976 during the Emergency and intended to limit the judiciary's authority and make the Constitution subservient to the executive's agenda.

The article then analyses the limitations of the doctrine of basic structure, which have been widely debated in legal circles. The author contends that the doctrine is imprecise and fluid, and that judges disagree on the components of the Constitution's fundamental construction. The author further contends that the effort of finding the essential features is difficult and time-consuming, and that neither the court nor Parliament is capable of identifying all of the components of the Constitution's basic structure at once.

The paper finishes with a discussion of the future of the doctrine of basic structure and the issues it faces today. The author contends that the theory is critical to Indian constitutionalism and should be addressed by the Supreme Court whenever the opportunity arises, with features such as its applicability, meaning, and breadth clarified in unequivocal words.

In my perspective, the article presents a thorough and analytical examination of the idea of basic structure and its application in Indian constitutional law. The author has done an outstanding job researching the doctrine's roots and evaluating its legitimacy and limitations. The article is well-written, well-researched, and makes an important contribution to the continuing debate and discussion about the idea of basic structure.

However, I have a few reservations regarding this paper. First, the author contends that the notion of basic structure is an imprecise and fluid concept, and that judges do not agree on the components of the Constitution's fundamental structure. While this is accurate, the author should have cited more specific examples of judge differences rather than simply making a general statement.

Secondly, the author contends that the notion of basic structure is an important component of Indian constitutionalism and should be examined by the Supreme Court. While I agree with this remark, I believe the author should have made more specific recommendations for how the doctrine can be examined and reformulated in the current era.

So finally to conclude, the article presents a useful study of the idea of basic structure and its application in Indian constitutional law. The author has done an outstanding job researching the doctrine's roots and evaluating its legitimacy and limitations. I would suggest this article to anyone interested in Indian constitutional law or the role of the judiciary in maintaining the balance of power and checks and balances necessary for a democracy to function properly.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Muskan Gupta

Authentication No: JL455822630956-10-0724