The folly of Kesavananda Bharati’s basic structure theory, a product of the full court of the Supreme Court of India running into half a million words out of a hearing which spanned over 68 days, can be unravelled in just a single sentence as infra:

If one were to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 prior to the Kesavananda era, the judges would invariably ask you what fundamental rights of yours are infringed and if you were not able to demonstrate the violation of any of the fundamental rights, your petition would be dismissed, whereas post Kesavananda Bharati you could approach the Supreme Court asserting that none of your fundamental rights, much less even your legal rights, are infringed, yet you can maintain your petition because no judge would ever ask how come you invoke Article 32 without complaining about the violation of your fundamental rights and further that how come it does matter to you if the basic structure is infringed but none of your rights are infringed, and if your real grievance is that your fundamental or legal rights are infringed, why don’t you plead that instead of pleading a violation of the basic structure which is incapable of any precise meaning.

Post Script.

Basic structure theory is in ignorance of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence, ubi jus ibi remedium, namely, where there is a right, there is a remedy, and the necessary corollary thereof that if there is no infringement of rights, there could be no remedy.

I am exposing the folly of the basic structure theory because using this fallacy only the Supreme Court usurped to itself the power of appointment of judges by creating an institution collegium and struck down the NJAC enacted to substitute Collegium.
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, which my humble self is leading, has been on a sustained campaign for the last more than 15 years for abolition of collegium and since 2015 for restoration of NJAC and open selection of judges through advertisement of vacancies and inviting applications from all eligible candidates.

The Folly of Kesavananda Bharati’s Basic Structure Doctrine Exposed in One Sentence.
Mathews J. Nedumpara
98205 35428
3rd March 2026.

The folly of Kesavananda Bharati’s basic structure theory, a product of the full court of the Supreme Court of India running into half a million words out of a hearing which spanned over 68 days, can be unravelled in just a single sentence as infra:

If one were to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 prior to the Kesavananda era, the judges would invariably ask you what fundamental rights of yours are infringed and if you were not able to demonstrate the violation of any of the fundamental rights, your petition would be dismissed, whereas post Kesavananda Bharati you could approach the Supreme Court asserting that none of your fundamental rights, much less even your legal rights, are infringed, yet you can maintain your petition because no judge would ever ask how come you invoke Article 32 without complaining about the violation of your fundamental rights and further that how come it does matter to you if the basic structure is infringed but none of your rights are infringed, and if your real grievance is that your fundamental or legal rights are infringed, why don’t you plead that instead of pleading a violation of the basic structure which is incapable of any precise meaning.

Post Script.

Basic structure theory is in ignorance of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence, ubi jus ibi remedium, namely, where there is a right, there is a remedy, and the necessary corollary thereof that if there is no infringement of rights, there could be no remedy.

I am exposing the folly of the basic structure theory because using this fallacy only the Supreme Court usurped to itself the power of appointment of judges by creating an institution collegium and struck down the NJAC enacted to substitute Collegium.
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, which my humble self is leading, has been on a sustained campaign for the last more than 15 years for abolition of collegium and since 2015 for restoration of NJAC and open selection of judges through advertisement of vacancies and inviting applications from all eligible candidates.