Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while granting Parliament the power to amend it under Article 368, doesn’t explicitly define the extent of this power. This ambiguity led to a series of judicial pronouncements that shaped the understanding of constitutional amendments. The initial years saw a broad interpretation of Article 368, allowing Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, the verdicts in *I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2007) built upon the foundations laid by *Golaknath* and *Kesavananda Bharati*, solidifying the principle that amendments violating the basic structure of the Constitution are invalid. This answer will examine the significance of the *Golaknath* and *Kesavananda Bharati* cases in understanding the scope of Article 368 in relation to Fundamental Rights.
The Pre-Golaknath Scenario: Parliamentary Sovereignty
Prior to the *Golaknath* case (1967), the prevailing view, as established in *Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan* (1962), was that Parliament possessed unlimited amending power under Article 368. This meant Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and such amendments were beyond the scope of judicial review. The court held that an amendment made under Article 368 was a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) but Article 13(2) did not apply to constitutional amendments.
The Golaknath Case (1967): A Shift in Perspective
The *Golaknath* case arose from challenges to constitutional amendments that sought to curtail Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 14 and Article 19. The Supreme Court, in a 11-judge bench decision, overturned the ruling in *Sajjan Singh*. The court held that Article 368 did not empower Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. It reasoned that Fundamental Rights were placed in Part III of the Constitution as a ‘transcendental and inviolable’ part, and any amendment altering them would be a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) and thus subject to judicial review. This meant that amendments infringing upon Fundamental Rights could be declared unconstitutional.
The Aftermath of Golaknath and the 24th Amendment
The *Golaknath* verdict was seen as a direct challenge to parliamentary sovereignty. In response, Parliament swiftly enacted the 24th Amendment Act, 1971. This amendment clarified that an amendment under Article 368 is a ‘law’ but is not subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13(2). It also added the word ‘for the purpose of dealing with any matter’ to clause (1) of Article 368, effectively granting Parliament broad powers to amend any part of the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The 24th Amendment was itself challenged in the *Kesavananda Bharati* case (1973). This case involved a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act and subsequent constitutional amendments. A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the case. While upholding the validity of the 24th Amendment, the court introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. This doctrine stated that Parliament, while possessing the power to amend the Constitution, cannot alter its ‘basic structure’ or essential features.
The court did not explicitly define the ‘basic structure’, but identified elements such as secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review, and the dignity of the individual as being part of it. Any amendment that destroys or damages these essential features would be deemed unconstitutional. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case effectively restored the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments, albeit with a nuanced approach.
Comparing Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati
| Feature | Golaknath (1967) | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Holding | Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. | Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure. |
| Impact on Article 368 | Restricted the scope of Article 368 significantly. | Defined the limits of Article 368 by introducing the basic structure doctrine. |
| Parliamentary Response | Led to the 24th Amendment. | No immediate legislative response, but the doctrine continues to be relevant. |
| Judicial Review | Affirmed the power of judicial review over amendments affecting Fundamental Rights. | Reaffirmed judicial review, but with a focus on protecting the basic structure. |
Significance for Understanding Article 368
The *Golaknath* and *Kesavananda Bharati* cases fundamentally altered the understanding of Article 368. *Golaknath* initially sought to protect Fundamental Rights by placing them beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power. However, *Kesavananda Bharati* provided a more balanced approach. It acknowledged Parliament’s amending power but imposed a crucial limitation – the preservation of the Constitution’s basic structure. This ensures that while the Constitution can evolve with changing societal needs, its core principles remain intact. The basic structure doctrine acts as a check on legislative overreach and safeguards the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution.
Conclusion
The verdicts in *Golaknath* and *Kesavananda Bharati* represent pivotal moments in Indian constitutional history. While *Golaknath* initially restricted the amending power of Parliament, it was *Kesavananda Bharati* that established a lasting framework for balancing legislative supremacy with judicial review. The basic structure doctrine, born out of this case, continues to be a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that amendments to the Constitution remain within the bounds of its fundamental principles and protect the rights of citizens. These cases demonstrate the dynamic interplay between the legislature and the judiciary in safeguarding the Constitution.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.