A recent statement by former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, doubting the fundamental principle of the basic structure doctrine, sparked a heated discussion within the Supreme Court during the ongoing hearing of the Article 370 case. 

The former Chief Justice's remarks were brought into focus during the proceedings, triggering a noteworthy exchange between Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Addressing a Constitution Bench, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was representing the petitioners in the case, raised concerns over the Centre's abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Sibal contended that such an action cannot be justified unless a new legal interpretation emerges, suggesting that the government possesses the authority to enact measures without constraint, as long as they command a majority.

"In fact, now one of your esteemed colleagues has said that the basic structure theory is also doubtful," Sibal asserted, referring to the statement made by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi during his maiden speech in the Rajya Sabha.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, upon Sibal's reference to a "colleague," emphasized that any reference to a sitting colleague should be limited to the time they are in office as judges. "Once we cease to be judges, whatever we say, they're opinions, they are not binding," Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, interjected during the discussion, stressing that the parliamentary proceedings should not be debated within the courtroom. Mehta highlighted that the matters of Parliament and the judiciary should remain distinct. "Parliament doesn't discuss what goes on in courts," Mehta asserted, implying that Sibal's arguments should have been presented during the parliamentary session.

Ranjan Gogoi, who assumed a position as a Rajya Sabha member after his retirement as Chief Justice in November 2019, expressed his views on the basic structure doctrine during his speech in the Rajya Sabha. Gogoi's statement, indicating skepticism towards the fundamental legal principle, has added a new layer of debate to the ongoing discussions surrounding the doctrine's application.

The Article 370 case itself revolves around the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir by the Central Government, raising constitutional and legal questions about the extent of executive authority and the protection of individual rights.

As the Supreme Court grapples with these intricate legal matters, the debate over the basic structure doctrine's validity and implications continues to evolve, leaving legal experts and observers eagerly awaiting the Court's decision.