Q.Parliament’s power to amend the constitution is limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power”. In light of this statement explain whether parliament under Article 368 of the constitution can destroy the Basic structure of the constitution by expanding its amending power?
Model Answer
View this Question In PYQ RealmSyllabus Point
- Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.
Approach
- Introduction (Definition) (30-40 words): Introduce Article 368 and the inherent limitations on Parliament's amending power.
- Body (Explanation) (80-90 words):
- Explain the origin of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati case).
- Discuss key judicial interventions (Minerva Mills, Coelho, Chandra Kumar cases) that restricted Parliament from claiming absolute amending power.
- Summarize the current legal position.
- Conclusion (20 words): Conclude by emphasizing the importance of constitutional morality and balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
Introduction
Body Analysis
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the power to amend, add, or repeal constitutional provisions. However, this power is not absolute; it is bound by the constitutional framework and subject to judicial review to prevent majoritarian overreach.
Body
The Amending Power and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its "Basic Structure".
Can Parliament Expand its Amending Power to Destroy the Basic Structure?
Parliament has previously attempted to bypass this limitation, leading to significant judicial interventions:
- The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976: Following the Kesavananda verdict, Parliament added Clauses 4 and 5 to Article 368, asserting that there was no limitation on its amending power and excluding such amendments from judicial review.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court struck down these clauses. The Court held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution. Therefore, Parliament cannot use its limited amending power to convert that power into an absolute one.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Court reaffirmed that all laws, including those placed in the Ninth Schedule, are subject to the test of fundamental rights, which form part of the basic structure.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Court declared that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, which cannot be amended away.
Current Legal Position:
- Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, but it cannot damage its core identity.
- The procedure prescribed under Article 368 is mandatory; non-compliance invalidates the amendment.
- Parliament cannot expand its amending power under Article 368 to bypass judicial scrutiny.
Objections Raised Against the Doctrine:
- Critics argue it creates uncertainty as the "Basic Structure" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
- Some believe it restricts the legislature's flexibility to adapt the Constitution to changing socio-economic realities.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution maintains a delicate balance between Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy. Both organs must adhere to Constitutional Morality to ensure that the amending power is never misused to compromise the core values of the republic.