Q.The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Discuss critically.

Body

1. Supreme Court’s Role in Checking Arbitrary Amendments

• The Basic Structure Doctrine: Established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, this doctrine rules that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its "basic structure" (e.g., secularism, federalism, democracy, judicial independence).
• Examples of Key Interventions:
  • First Amendment (1951): While the amendment introduced restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2), subsequent judicial reviews ensured that any such restriction must meet the test of "reasonableness."
  • 25th Amendment (1971): This amendment sought to prioritize Directive Principles (DPSPs) over Fundamental Rights and restrict judicial review. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the SC reasserted that judicial review is an indispensable part of the basic structure.
  • 39th Amendment (1975): Passed during the Emergency, it placed the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker beyond judicial scrutiny. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court struck down this provision, declaring free and fair elections as part of the basic structure.
  • 42nd Amendment (1976): Known as the "mini-Constitution," it attempted to curtail judicial review and establish absolute parliamentary supremacy. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the SC invalidated these provisions, restoring the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
  • 99th Amendment (2014): This amendment sought to establish the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck it down, holding that judicial independence is a core component of the basic structure.

2. Critical Analysis: Criticisms of the Judiciary's Role

While the Supreme Court's checks have preserved constitutional integrity, its role has also faced criticism:

• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the "Basic Structure" doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, making it a subjective tool that allows unelected judges to veto laws passed by a democratically elected Parliament.
• Undermining Parliamentary Sovereignty: Frequent judicial interventions can weaken the representative character of Parliament, which derives its mandate directly from the people.
• Inconsistent Interpretations: Because the "basic structure" is not exhaustively defined, its application can vary, leading to legal uncertainty.
• Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Decisions on crucial socio-economic reforms are sometimes seen as being stalled by a conservative judiciary, overriding the collective will of the electorate.
• Restricting Progressive Reforms: Some critics argue that rigid judicial checks have occasionally slowed down necessary constitutional adaptations required to meet changing societal needs.

3. Balanced Perspective

• Parliament’s Role: Parliament must retain its dynamic power to amend the Constitution to address evolving socio-economic challenges, but it must do so within the constitutional framework.
• Judicial Role: The Supreme Court must exercise its power of judicial review with restraint, using the basic structure doctrine as a shield to protect constitutional values rather than as a sword to stall legitimate legislative policy.

---