Myth-Busting Constitutional Law

As a law student or junior advocate, you've probably come across various "rules" and "exceptions" in Constitutional Law that seem more like urban legends than actual legal principles. Let's break down some common misconceptions and set the record straight. Q: What's the deal with the "Basic Structure Doctrine"? I've heard it's a myth that the Supreme Court can't touch. A: Not quite. The Basic Structure Doctrine, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), does prevent the Parliament from amending certain fundamental features of the Constitution. However, the Court has consistently held that Parliament can make amendments within the existing framework, and the Doctrine doesn't grant absolute immunity to the Constitution. It's more like a set of guidelines for Parliament to follow. Q: I thought the Right to Privacy was only a part of Article 21. How did it become a standalone fundamental right? A: The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment clarified that the Right to Privacy is indeed a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, encompassing not just Article 21 but also Articles 14, 19, and 300A. The judgment marked a significant shift in the Court's interpretation of individual rights. Q: Isn't the concept of "Reasonable Restrictions" just a way to justify any kind of censorship? A: Not entirely. The "Reasonable Restrictions" test, as outlined in Article 19(2), is meant to balance individual freedoms with the greater good. However, the Court has consistently held that restrictions must be proportionate to the purpose they're intended to serve. For instance, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down a provision of the IT Act that restricted free speech due to its overbroad and arbitrary nature. Q: Can the President of India ever be held accountable for their actions? A: While the President enjoys a degree of immunity, they're not above the law. In S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the President can be sued for acts done in their official capacity, although they may enjoy immunity for acts done in their personal capacity. Let's think about this real-world scenario: Imagine a government attempting to pass a law that restricts the right to expression on social media. The law claims to be necessary for "public order" but in reality, it's aimed at suppressing dissenting voices. Would the law be constitutional? Would the Court uphold it? Can we use the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Right to Privacy, and the Reasonable Restrictions test to challenge such a law?