PRINCIPLE: Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure comprises the foundational features that define the Constitution's essential character and framework. These include features like the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic and republican form of government, judicial independence, and the separation of powers. Once Parliament attempts to alter these core features through amendment, such amendment becomes void and unenforceable, regardless of the procedural regularity with which it was passed.

FACTUAL SCENARIO: The State of Kalida enacted Constitutional Amendment Act No. 47, passed with the required majority votes in both houses of Parliament. Amendment Act No. 47 sought to replace the judicial review power of courts with an executive-only review mechanism, thereby removing the courts' authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The amendment also abolished the independence of the judiciary by making all judges directly subordinate to the executive branch for appointment, promotion, and dismissal. The amendment was technically valid in procedure—it followed all parliamentary rules, met quorum requirements, and received the mandated supermajority. However, a citizen challenged the amendment in court, arguing it violated the basic structure doctrine. The court examined whether judicial independence and judicial review—two longstanding features since the Constitution's inception—formed part of the Constitution's basic structure. The court determined that without judicial review, the Constitution's supremacy becomes meaningless, as no mechanism would exist to enforce constitutional limits on government power. Similarly, without judicial independence, the separation of powers collapses, allowing one branch to dominate others. The court therefore declared Amendment Act No. 47 void ab initio, holding that even a validly-passed amendment cannot override the Constitution's basic structural features.