The Supreme Court has held that rule of law and judicial review are part of the basic structure, meaning Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to eliminate judicial review of legislative/executive action or establish arbitrary governance.

Rule of law and judicial review as basic structure: (a) Core features: (i) Rule of law: Supremacy of Constitution, equality before law, government under law, (ii) Judicial review: Courts' power to examine constitutionality of legislative/executive action, protect Fundamental Rights, (b) Unamendable core: Parliament cannot amend Constitution to: (i) Eliminate judicial review of legislative/executive action, (ii) Establish arbitrary governance without legal basis, (iii) Remove courts' power to protect Fundamental Rights, (iv) Create ouster clauses completely excluding judicial review of constitutional matters, (c) Applications: (i) Ouster clauses: L. Chandra Kumar (1997) held tribunals' decisions subject to HC/SC judicial review; ouster clauses cannot exclude constitutional courts' jurisdiction, (ii) Emergency provisions: Judicial review of Presidential satisfaction under Articles 352, 356, 360 ensures rule of law even during crisis, (iii) Administrative action: Courts review executive action for constitutionality, rationality, procedural fairness under rule of law principle, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional supremacy: Rule of law ensures Constitution, not transient majorities, supreme, (ii) Rights protection: Judicial review essential for enforcing Fundamental Rights against state excess, (iii) Accountability: Rule of law, judicial review ensure government accountable to law, not arbitrary power, (e) Illustrates basic structure protection: Rule of law, judicial review as unamendable core; amendment power cannot destroy mechanisms ensuring constitutional supremacy, rights protection, governmental accountability.