Points to Remember:
- Article 368: Deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial limitation on Parliament’s amending power.
- Limited vs. Absolute Power: The inherent constraints on Parliament’s constitutional amendment authority.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Landmark Supreme Court judgment establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Introduction:
The statement “Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power” encapsulates a central tenet of Indian constitutional law. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, granting Parliament significant power in this regard. However, the Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which limits Parliament’s amending power, preventing the destruction of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. This doctrine asserts that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core elements or “basic structure.” This essay will analyze whether Parliament, under Article 368, can circumvent this limitation and destroy the basic structure by expanding its own amending power.
Body:
1. Article 368 and the Amendment Process:
Article 368 lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. It specifies different majorities required for different types of amendments, including special majorities and ratification by state legislatures. This procedure itself reflects a conscious effort to prevent hasty or ill-considered changes to the fundamental law. However, the article itself doesn’t explicitly define the limits of Parliament’s amending power.
2. The Basic Structure Doctrine:
The Kesavananda Bharati case fundamentally altered the understanding of Article 368. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. It is subject to the limitation that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed. The court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, leaving it open to interpretation in subsequent cases. However, elements generally considered part of the basic structure include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution’s position as the supreme law of the land.
- Secularism: The principle of separation of religion from the state.
- Federalism: The balance of power between the Union and the States.
- Democracy: The principles of representative government and adult suffrage.
- Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review legislative actions.
- Fundamental Rights: The basic human rights guaranteed to citizens.
3. Can Parliament Expand its Amending Power to Destroy the Basic Structure?
The answer is unequivocally no. If Parliament were to attempt to amend Article 368 itself to expand its amending power in a way that would destroy the basic structure, such an amendment would be deemed void by the judiciary. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine, reiterating that it acts as a check on Parliament’s amending power. Any attempt to bypass this doctrine by altering the amendment procedure itself would be struck down as unconstitutional. This ensures that the fundamental framework of the Constitution remains intact, safeguarding its core values and principles.
4. Examples and Case Studies:
Several cases have tested the limits of Article 368 in relation to the Basic Structure Doctrine. While the precise definition of the basic structure remains fluid, the court has consistently applied the doctrine to invalidate amendments that threatened core constitutional values. For example, the court has struck down amendments that sought to curtail fundamental rights beyond permissible limits.
Conclusion:
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is indeed limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court has firmly established that Parliament cannot, through any amendment, including an amendment to Article 368 itself, destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This limitation is crucial for safeguarding the fundamental values and principles enshrined in the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, adaptable to changing circumstances, but always anchored to its core principles. This balance between flexibility and stability is essential for the continued success of India’s democratic and constitutional order. The way forward lies in a continued commitment to upholding the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that any constitutional amendments are consistent with the fundamental values and principles upon which the Indian Constitution is built. This approach fosters a robust and enduring democracy, promoting holistic development and upholding constitutional values for generations to come.