Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while providing a mechanism for amendment under Article 368, also implicitly recognizes limitations on the amending power. The landmark case of *Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.* (1965 AIR 997, SCR (2) 379) significantly shaped the understanding of Article 368, asserting the Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, the subsequent emergence of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, beginning with *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973 AIR 1461, SCR (2) 370), has substantially curtailed the scope of the Kasturi Lal ruling, rendering its practical force considerably diminished despite not being formally overruled. This answer will elucidate how this dilution has occurred through a series of judicial pronouncements.
The Kasturi Lal Verdict: A Broad Interpretation of Amending Power
The *Kasturi Lal* case arose from a challenge to the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which sought to modify Article 31 (property rights) and the Ninth Schedule. The Supreme Court, in a 6-5 majority, held that Parliament possessed the power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, even if it altered fundamental rights. The court reasoned that Article 368 did not impose any procedural or substantive limitations on the amending power of Parliament. This implied that Parliament could, in theory, even alter the basic framework of the Constitution.
The Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The expansive view taken in *Kasturi Lal* was soon challenged. The *Kesavananda Bharati* case (1973) marked a turning point. While upholding Parliament’s amending power, the court introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. This doctrine posited that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its ‘basic structure’ or essential features. The court did not explicitly define the basic structure, leaving it open to interpretation in subsequent cases.
Dilution of Kasturi Lal: Subsequent Judgments
Following *Kesavananda Bharati*, a series of cases further clarified and solidified the basic structure doctrine, effectively limiting the scope of *Kasturi Lal*. Key cases include:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and linked it to the basic structure.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865): The 42nd Amendment, attempting to curtail judicial review, was struck down as violating the basic structure.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980 AIR 625): The court explicitly stated that the power of judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles were part of the basic structure.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 AIR 1918): Secularism was declared a basic feature of the Constitution.
These cases demonstrated that any amendment that damaged or destroyed the fundamental features of the Constitution would be deemed unconstitutional, regardless of the majority in Parliament. This directly contradicted the broad interpretation of Article 368 endorsed in *Kasturi Lal*.
Practical Impact and Current Position
Today, the *Kasturi Lal* case is largely considered a historical precedent. While it hasn’t been formally overruled, the basic structure doctrine has become firmly established. Any attempt to amend the Constitution in a manner that alters its core principles would be struck down by the courts. The judiciary now acts as a vigilant guardian of the basic structure, ensuring that the amending power is exercised within constitutional limits. The Parliament’s power to amend is now understood as being subject to judicial review based on the basic structure doctrine.
| Case | Year | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. | 1965 | Parliament has unlimited amending power under Article 368. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Introduction of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting amending power. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Expanded scope of Article 21 and its connection to basic structure. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Judicial review and balance between FRs & DPSP are basic features. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while *Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.* initially presented a broad view of Parliament’s amending power, the subsequent development of the basic structure doctrine, through a series of landmark judgments, has effectively curtailed its influence. The judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and guardian of its fundamental principles has ensured that the amending power is exercised responsibly and within constitutional boundaries. Although not formally overruled, the practical force of *Kasturi Lal* has been significantly diminished, making it a largely historical precedent in the context of constitutional amendments in India.
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.