Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, a product of extensive deliberation, envisioned a dynamic framework capable of adapting to evolving societal needs. Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, a seemingly broad authority. However, this power isn't absolute, as recognized by the Supreme Court through the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the doctrine of basic structure. This doctrine effectively curtailed the Parliament’s amending power, simultaneously bolstering the judiciary’s role in constitutional oversight. The question probes the relationship between these two elements, requiring a discussion of the Parliament’s amending power and its interaction with judicial review.
Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution: An Overview
Article 368 of the Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It distinguishes between three categories of amendments:
- Amendment by Simple Majority: Amendments relating to procedural matters can be passed by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.
- Amendment by Special Majority: Amendments relating to matters of substance require a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House, and ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states.
- Amendment by Abolition or Modification of Provisions: This involves altering the federal structure of the Constitution and requires the same procedure as amendments by special majority, along with ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Initially, the interpretation of Article 368 leaned towards a wider scope of Parliament's amending power, as evidenced in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, which attempted to severely restrict the amending power. This was swiftly curtailed by the 24th Amendment Act (1971).
The Doctrine of Basic Structure: A Constitutional Check
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case marked a watershed moment. While upholding the validity of the 24th Amendment Act, the Court introduced the doctrine of basic structure, stating that the Parliament’s amending power is wide, but not unlimited. The basic structure cannot be altered or destroyed by a constitutional amendment.
Defining Basic Structure: The exact contours of the basic structure remain undefined and have evolved through subsequent judgments. Some commonly recognized elements include:
- Secularism: Separation of religion from the state.
- Democracy: A government elected by the people.
- Rule of Law: Equality before the law and due process.
- Federalism: Division of powers between the Union and the states.
- Judicial Independence: The judiciary’s ability to function free from undue influence.
- Welfare State: Directive Principles of State Policy guiding the government's actions.
Impact on Parliament's Power: The basic structure doctrine acts as a constitutional restraint on Parliament’s amending power. Any amendment that violates these basic principles is deemed unconstitutional and will be struck down by the judiciary.
Reinforcement of Judicial Review
The doctrine of basic structure significantly reinforced the power of judicial review. Prior to Kesavananda Bharati, judicial review was primarily limited to examining whether a law violated the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine empowered the judiciary to scrutinize constitutional amendments themselves, ensuring that they do not fundamentally alter the character of the Constitution.
Examples of Judicial Review post-Kesavananda Bharati:
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment Act that sought to curtail judicial review, reaffirming the importance of the basic structure doctrine.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case expanded the scope of judicial review, particularly concerning the imposition of President's Rule in states, highlighting the judiciary’s role in protecting federalism.
The judiciary, through its interpretations and applications of the basic structure doctrine, has become a crucial guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the Parliament’s amending power is exercised responsibly and within constitutional boundaries. It has essentially created a "living constitution" that evolves with societal changes while preserving its core values.
Criticisms and Challenges
While the doctrine of basic structure has been lauded for safeguarding the Constitution, it has also faced criticism. Some argue that it grants the judiciary excessive power, potentially leading to judicial overreach. Others contend that the vagueness of the "basic structure" makes it susceptible to subjective interpretation.
The potential for political manipulation of judicial decisions regarding the basic structure also remains a concern. The judiciary must therefore exercise caution and restraint in applying this doctrine.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is undoubtedly substantial, enabling necessary adjustments to the constitutional framework. However, this power is circumscribed by the doctrine of basic structure, a vital safeguard against arbitrary alterations. The Kesavananda Bharati case and subsequent judgments have solidified the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, reinforcing judicial review and ensuring that the amending power is exercised responsibly. While criticisms surrounding judicial overreach persist, the doctrine of basic structure remains a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy, striking a balance between flexibility and stability.
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.