Points to Remember:
- The amending power of the Parliament under Article 368.
- Limitations on the Parliament’s amending power as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
- Key Supreme Court judgments defining the scope of Article 368.
- The balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
- The ongoing debate on the extent of judicial intervention in constitutional amendments.
Introduction:
The Indian Constitution vests the power to amend the Constitution in the Parliament (Article 368). However, this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court of India, through its judicial review power, acts as a crucial check on the Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution arbitrarily, ensuring that amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. This essay critically discusses the extent to which the Supreme Court effectively limits the arbitrary exercise of the Parliament’s amending power. The debate hinges on the interpretation of Article 368 and the evolving understanding of the “basic structure” doctrine.
Body:
1. The Amending Power of Parliament (Article 368): Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, specifying different majorities required for various types of amendments. While seemingly granting wide powers to the Parliament, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this power is not unlimited.
2. The Basic Structure Doctrine: The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the “basic structure” doctrine. The Court held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic features or framework. This doctrine effectively limits the Parliament’s amending power by introducing a judicial check. The exact components of the basic structure remain a subject of ongoing debate and judicial interpretation. Examples often cited include the rule of law, democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial review itself.
3. Supreme Court Judgments and their Impact: Several Supreme Court judgments have further clarified and applied the basic structure doctrine. For instance, in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down an amendment that sought to curtail the judicial review power, highlighting its importance as a fundamental aspect of the basic structure. Subsequent cases have further refined the understanding of the basic structure, leading to a dynamic interplay between the legislative and judicial branches.
4. Positive Aspects of Judicial Check: The Supreme Court’s intervention prevents the Parliament from making amendments that fundamentally alter the character of the Constitution. This safeguards the core values and principles upon which the nation is founded. It ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, adaptable yet anchored to its fundamental principles. The judicial check promotes constitutionalism and the rule of law, preventing potential tyranny of the majority.
5. Negative Aspects and Criticisms: Critics argue that the basic structure doctrine grants excessive power to the judiciary, potentially leading to judicial overreach. The lack of a clear and exhaustive definition of the “basic structure” leaves room for subjective interpretation and potential inconsistency in judicial pronouncements. This ambiguity can lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in the legislative process. Furthermore, some argue that it undermines parliamentary sovereignty, a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s role in checking the arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution is a complex and crucial aspect of Indian constitutional law. While the basic structure doctrine effectively prevents drastic alterations to the fundamental framework of the Constitution, safeguarding its core values, it also raises concerns about potential judicial overreach and the balance between judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty. A way forward involves greater clarity and transparency in defining the basic structure, perhaps through a constitutional amendment or a comprehensive judicial pronouncement. This would enhance predictability and reduce the potential for conflict between the legislature and the judiciary. Ultimately, a strong and independent judiciary, coupled with a responsible and accountable Parliament, is essential for upholding the constitutional values and ensuring the continued success of India’s democratic experiment. The ongoing dialogue between these two branches of government is vital for the evolution and preservation of the Constitution, ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness in a changing world.