Talk:Basic structure doctrine

India: Politics Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).

Law Start‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minerva Mills and scope of doctrine

I have made changes to reflect the correct view of Minerva Mills. The previous editor was, perhaps, confusing it with another case. I have also made it clear that the Basic Structure doctrine has nothing to do with ordinary acts of parliament but only with Constitutional Amendments.

The article previously stated that

"the primary test for constitutionality under the precedents of the Supreme Court of India is whether the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution has been in any way modified by the Act under consideration. This test has also been used by the Supreme Court to limit the amending power of the Parliament of India."

This is wrong. The primary test for constiutionality of ordinary acts is repugnancy to any part of the constitution (whether or not that part of the constitution constitutes the basic structure.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.94 (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General concept vs India-specific application

Why is this about a specific application of the basic structure concept, instead of the basic structure itself (Rawls)? This is like me putting in "freedom" and getting redirected to the U.S. Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.36.10 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's like putting in Second amendment and getting routed to the appropriate US one rather than the Indian one (on land reform, I think). It depends on the most common usage. If you wish to write an article on the Rawlsian concept, go ahead, and we can work out a disambiguation structure once done. Hornplease 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Article

Name of this Article should not be just Basic Structure, as just the words basic structure are not in any way related to the Basic Structure Doctrine followed in respect to constitution of India. --Alok Bansal (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is moved to this new name as per the discussion in the Noticeboard for India related topics. Alok Bansal (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article from "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" to "Basic structure doctrine"

Hello User:Skcpublic!
The article name "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" was decided in the discussion held in February 2012 at WT:INB which is now archived here. I know its a bad place to discuss such things and we now see why. I assume you moved it just because you were unaware of the discussion as it did not happen here on the article's talk page. Anyways.... i would request you to move it back to its title "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". If you disagree, i would request you to notify all the editors in the previous discussion regarding your disagreement. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and the term "Basic structure doctrine" is unique to this specific doctrine of the Indian judiciary, there are similar terms in other legal/constitutional systems but not the same term. I'll notify the other thread (which I wasn't aware of) of this discussion if they have comments/response. --Skcpublic (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Conrad

A. G. NOORANI in Behind the 'basic structure' doctrine (FRONTLINE, Volume 18 - Issue 09, Apr. 28 - May 11, 2001) notes that the idea creeps its way to the lectures of Dietrich Conrad, who opened such insights to the Indian jurists by basing his experience of the German Weimar times (i.e. tha of unchecked power of amendment, steeped in following the law to letter and disregarding the spirit.) Pokedora (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basic structure doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basic structure doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Doctrine of Basic Structure be merged into Basic structure doctrine. I think that the content in the "Doctrine of Basic Structure" article can easily be explained in the context of "Basic structure doctrine", and the "Basic structure doctrine" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Doctrine of Basic Structure" will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Srinivasasha (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would agree. They seem to be broadly the same subject matter. scope_creep (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]