“Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure” — comment.

by

Points to Remember:

  • The doctrine of basic structure.
  • The Kesavananda Bharati case.
  • Limitations on Parliament’s amending power.
  • Debates surrounding the basic structure doctrine.
  • Implications for constitutionalism in India.

Introduction:

The statement “Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure” encapsulates a crucial aspect of Indian constitutional law. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), established the doctrine of basic structure, limiting Parliament’s amending power. This doctrine holds that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental or essential features. This judgment fundamentally shaped the understanding of parliamentary sovereignty in the Indian context, introducing a judicial check on legislative power.

Body:

1. The Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine:

The Kesavananda Bharati case was a watershed moment. A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that while the amending power under Article 368 is wide, it is not unlimited. The Court identified certain features of the Constitution as fundamental and unamendable. These “basic features” or “basic structure” are not explicitly defined but are interpreted based on the spirit and essence of the Constitution. Examples include:

  • Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.
  • Secularism: The principle of separation of religion from the state.
  • Federalism: The balance of power between the Union and the States.
  • Democracy: The principles of free and fair elections, and the rule of law.
  • Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review legislative and executive actions.
  • Fundamental Rights: The rights guaranteed to citizens under Part III of the Constitution.

2. Limitations on Parliament’s Amending Power:

The basic structure doctrine effectively limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Any amendment that seeks to alter the basic structure is deemed void. This acts as a safeguard against potential abuse of the amending power and protects the core values of the Constitution. Subsequent cases have further refined and clarified the scope of the basic structure doctrine, leading to ongoing debates and interpretations.

3. Debates and Criticisms of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

The basic structure doctrine has faced criticism. Some argue that it encroaches upon parliamentary sovereignty, giving the judiciary excessive power. Others contend that it lacks clarity and predictability, making it difficult to determine what constitutes a basic structure element. The subjective nature of identifying “basic structure” has led to concerns about judicial overreach. However, proponents argue that it is a necessary safeguard against majoritarian tyranny and ensures the protection of fundamental rights and constitutional values.

4. Impact and Implications:

The basic structure doctrine has significantly impacted Indian constitutional law. It has played a crucial role in upholding fundamental rights, protecting federalism, and ensuring the continued relevance of the Constitution in a changing socio-political landscape. It has also influenced judicial review in other countries with similar constitutional frameworks.

Conclusion:

The statement “Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure” accurately reflects the current state of Indian constitutional law. The Kesavananda Bharati case established a crucial balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. While the basic structure doctrine has faced criticism, it has served as a vital safeguard against potential threats to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Going forward, a clearer articulation of the basic structure elements, coupled with greater transparency in judicial reasoning, would enhance the doctrine’s effectiveness and reduce ambiguity. This will ensure the continued protection of constitutional values and the preservation of India’s democratic ethos, promoting holistic development within the framework of a vibrant and enduring Constitution. The doctrine, despite its challenges, remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, ensuring a balance between legislative power and the protection of fundamental rights and the core values of the nation.

MPPCS  Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for MPPCS  Prelims and MPPCS  Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by MPPCS  Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––