The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment that introduced economic reservation in India. The Constitution Bench consisting of five judges delivered four separate opinions, wherein Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala wrote separate but concurring opinions for the majority, whereas Justice Bhat wrote a dissent on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Lalit. The aim of this essay is not to discuss the core issue of economic reservation decided by the Court, but to analyse some interesting observations on the basic structure doctrine made by Justice Pardiwala in his concurring opinion. Justice Pardiwala cites literature critical of the basic structure doctrine and argues that it has been used in affecting policy decisions resulting in widespread resentment against it and it also deprives the future generations of the possibility of having a constitution that is reflective of their aspirations. Taking a cue from this, in this essay, a case is made for revisiting the basic structure doctrine on grounds that it is against the vision of the Constituent Assembly; is an affront to democracy; has dubious origins emanating from the lack of clarity over its meaning in the basic structure case; and is an act of judicial supremacy.
