Headline
The Supreme Court of India states that Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be sole ground for challenging validity of the Statute.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, stating that a statute cannot be struck down solely on the ground that it violates the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution . The Supreme Court stresses that challenges to a statute’s validity must cite a violation of specific Constitutional provisions or legislative incompetence, rather than general principles like secularism.
Key Facts
- Case Name: Anjum Kadari & Another vs. Union of India & Others, Diary No. 14432-2024;
- Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 7821/2024.
- Judges Name: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
- High Court Decision Overturned: Allahabad High Court had struck down the Act on the grounds of violating secularism which is considered as a Basic Structure feature.
Legal Insights
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud shed light on the fact that only Constitutional amendments, not ordinary statutes, can be tested against the Doctrine of Basic Structure. For statutes, a clear violation of Part III or lack of legislative competence is needed for invalidation.
Impact
This ruling of the Supreme Court shows the udicial limits on declaring statutes unconstitutional, by making sure that only direct constitutional breaches or lack of legislative authority can invalidate legislation.
Why It Matters
The judgment defines the boundaries of the Basic Structure Doctrine in statute challenges, stressing on the legislative authority and specific constitutional protections, rather than broad philosophical principles, in upholding or striking down laws.
Source:
