The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in ensuring that the Parliament does not abuse its power to amend the Constitution arbitrarily. This is done through the concept of “Basic Structure Doctrine”, which was established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Critical discussion:

Pros:

1. Checks and balances: The Supreme Court’s power to review constitutional amendments ensures that the Parliament does not become all-powerful, maintaining a balance of power among the branches of government.

2. Protection of fundamental rights: The Court ensures that amendments do not infringe upon fundamental rights, such as equality, liberty, and justice, which are essential to the Constitution’s basic structure.

3. Prevention of abuse of power: The Court’s scrutiny prevents the Parliament from using its power to amend the Constitution for personal or political gain, rather than for the public good.

Cons:

1. Judicial activism: Critics argue that the Supreme Court’s power to review constitutional amendments can lead to judicial activism, where the Court oversteps its bounds and interferes with the legislative process.

2. Limitations on parliamentary sovereignty: The Basic Structure Doctrine can be seen as limiting the Parliament’s sovereignty, which is a fundamental principle of democracy.

3. Potential for political conflict: The Court’s review of constitutional amendments can lead to political conflict between the judiciary and the legislature, potentially destabilizing the democratic system.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s role in checking the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is crucial for maintaining the balance of power and protecting fundamental rights. However, it is important to strike a balance between judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty to ensure that the democratic system functions smoothly.