As every Constitution when written is inherently founded on some basic  philosophywhich pervades throughout its text like a thread and if this thread is somehow snapped, then the entire Constitutional fabric will tatter to its pieces thereby, destroying the whole identity of the Constitution. It is thus not only necessary, but of paramount importance that such basic features of the Constitution are not only preserved in their pristine glory but must be held inviolable so that any process of amendment to the Constitution howsoever pressing it might be should not dislocate such basic features of the Constitution after all, Constitution is a national heritage and not just a political manifesto of a political party. It cannot twist and mutilate a Constitution according to its political expediency by claiming that transient majority in the legislature so as to strike at its very foundation and shaking the elegant edifice on which it is magnificently constructed. This has been the latest attitude that the Courts have taken towards the Constitution so as to save it from the onslaught of unwarranted and unchecked amendments at the behest of a political party coming to power seeking to fulfill its political objectives. The Courts have thus added a new chapter to the Constitutional jurisprudence of the country by inventing the innovative doctrine of basic structure so as to imply a check on that mindless amending spree that the governments in the past have had uninhibitedly indulged in.  

It is thus, necessary to identify those basic features of the Constitution which are non-amendable even under Art.368. This question has been considered by the Court from time to time, and several such features have been identified, but the matter still remains an open one because, no exhaustive list of such features has yet emerged and the Court has to decide the same from case to case whether a constitutional feature can be characterized as basic or not.

In the seminal KeservanandaBharati case which actually became the epicenter of the much regaled basic structure doctrine, Justice SIKRI, the then Chief Justice while pronouncing the judgment in the landmark Keshavananda, mentioned the following features of the Constitution as the one’s constituting the "basic foundation and structure" of the Constitution:

• Supremacy of the Constitution:
• Separation of Powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary:
• Republican and democratic form of Government:
• Secular character of the Constitution.
• Federal Character of the Constitution.

In the instant case, SIKRI, C.J with utmost wisdom also maintained that the above features are easily discernible not only from the Preamble but even from the whole scheme of the Constitution itself. Other Judges mentioned in addition to the above still more as the basic features such as:

• The dignity of the individual secured by the various Fundamental Rights and the man-date to build a welfare state contained in the directive principles:
• The unity and integrity of the nation.
• Parliamentary system.

The above features have been mentioned as only illustrative and the list is not by any means exhaustive. Whether a feature of the Constitution is 'basic' or not is to be determined from time to time by the Court as and when the question arises in a particular case brought before it.

Since Kesavananda, the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in several cases and the Court has had occasion to declare several more of such features of the Constitution as fundamental features or constituting the basic structures of the Constitution.

It is generally agreed that all Fundamental Rights do not constitute basic features. For example, in Kesavananda itself it has been held that the right to property does not pertain to the basic structure of the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is a different matter now that Art. 31 has been repealed, and Art. 300A has been included in its place and that too in a distant part of the Constitution which is of course; outside the part III of the Constitution and thus, right to property has ceased to be a Fundamental Right as well as basic feature of the Constitution. It is merely a constitutional right now.

In KihotoHollohon: the Supreme Court has declared: "Democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution" and Election conducted at regular prescribed intervals is essential to the democratic system envisaged in the Constitution. So is the need to protect and sustain the purity of the electoral process. That may take within it the quality, efficiency and adequacy of the machinery for resolution of electoral disputes."

In Bommai case- 1994, the Apex Court further observed in this context: "Democracy and Federal-ism are essential features of our-Constitution and are part of its basic structure."

In the same case, the Supreme Court has also ruled that secularism is a basic or an essential feature of the Constitution. The concept of secularism is embedded in the Constitution. The concept means that the State is to accord an equal treatment to all religions and religious sects and denominations. The Court went on to observe in this regard:

Secularism is also regarded as a facet of equality. How can the concept of equality be promoted if the state prefers and promotes one particular religion, race or caste which necessarily means being less favourable to other religious groups, sects or castes.

In Indira Gandhi v. Rajnarain, the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled that the Preamble to the Indian Constitution guarantees equality of status and of opportunity and that the Rule of law is the basic structure of the Constitution.

In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has asserted that independence of judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution as it is the sine qua non of democracy; it is the most essential characteristic of a free society. This means that the judiciary ought to be kept free from the influence of political considerations and, therefore, judicial appointments cannot be left to the absolute discretion of the executive.

To sum up, it may be stated that the Supreme Court has made a very great contribution to the cause of constitutionalism in India by enunciating the doctrine of inviolability of the basic features of the Constitution. The doctrine is the result of a feeling among the judges that certain values and ideals embedded in the Constitution should be-preserved and not destroyed by any process of constitutional amendment and even the rulers of the Country should be cognizant of what constitutes the basic features of the Constitution after all, the Constitution is being worked by the men and not by robots.  The doctrine places an embargo on the erosion of basic features but a constitutional amendment seeking to promote, strengthen and enlarge a basic feature would be most welcome. Undoubtedly, the doctrine has deterred the ruling party having a majority in both Houses of Parliament -from effecting ill considered constitutional amendments, such as, the infamous 39th Amendment. The doctrine seeks to preserve the basic, core, constitutional values against the onslaught of a transient' majority in Parliament. The Constitution is not a party manifesto which can be amended by the party at its will to suit political expediency but a national heritage which ought to be amended only when there is a broad national consensus favouring a specific amendment…