Talk about the state legislatures’ and the parliament’s roles in the amending process. What is the necessary majority vote to approve a constitutional amendment, and how and why was it decided upon?
The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament's power to amend the ConstitutionRead more
The doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, as established by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), represents a significant development in constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine places limits on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by asserting that certain essential features or principles of the Constitution are immutable and cannot be altered even through constitutional amendments.
Evolution of the Doctrine
Background to Kesavananda Bharati Case:
The case arose in the context of constitutional amendments made by the Parliament that sought to curtail judicial review and expand its own powers.
The central issue was whether there are any inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, through a historic 7-6 majority decision, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not unlimited.
The Court asserted that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution that form its core foundation.
Key Features of the Basic Structure:
The exact components of the basic structure have not been exhaustively defined but typically include:
Supremacy of the Constitution: Including the supremacy of the Constitution over other laws and organs of the state.
Democratic and Republican Nature: Including free and fair elections, representative democracy, and republican form of government.
Secularism: India’s commitment to secularism as enshrined in the Constitution.
Federalism: The distribution of powers between the Centre and the states.
Separation of Powers: The division of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality.
Impact on Parliament’s Amending Power:
The Kesavananda Bharati case established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that violates or destroys its basic structure.
Amendments that seek to alter the basic structure can be subjected to judicial review, and if found to be in conflict with the basic structure, they can be declared unconstitutional and void.
Limitations Imposed on Parliament
Judicial Review: The doctrine empowers the judiciary to review constitutional amendments, ensuring they do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.
Consensus Building: Parliament must garner broad consensus and justify any amendments that might impact the basic structure, fostering a more deliberative and careful approach to constitutional changes.
Stability and Continuity: The doctrine provides stability and continuity to the constitutional framework, preventing abrupt or radical changes that could undermine the foundational principles of the Republic.
Criticisms and Interpretations
Scope of Basic Structure: Critics argue that the doctrine’s scope remains vague, leading to potential judicial overreach or subjectivity in determining what constitutes the basic structure.
Impact on Democratic Processes: Some argue that the doctrine limits the democratic will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.
Conclusion
The doctrine of the basic structure, as evolved through the Kesavananda Bharati case, stands as a bulwark against arbitrary constitutional amendments that threaten the foundational principles of India’s democracy. It has shaped constitutional interpretation and limited the Parliament’s amending power by affirming that certain core features of the Constitution are sacrosanct and cannot be altered without judicial scrutiny and justification. This doctrine ensures the enduring resilience and integrity of India’s constitutional framework while balancing the need for flexibility and adaptability in response to evolving societal needs and challenges.
In constitutional democracies like India, the amendment process involves both the Parliament (at the central level) and the state legislatures (at the state level). Let's discuss their roles and the majority thresholds required for passing constitutional amendments: Role of Parliament and State LegiRead more
In constitutional democracies like India, the amendment process involves both the Parliament (at the central level) and the state legislatures (at the state level). Let’s discuss their roles and the majority thresholds required for passing constitutional amendments:
Role of Parliament and State Legislatures
Parliament (Central Level):
Initiation of Amendments: Amendments to the Indian Constitution can be initiated in either house of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha).
Passage in Parliament: The amendment bill must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each house (i.e., a simple majority of members present and voting, assuming quorum is met).
Special Majority Requirement: Some amendments require a special majority, which means it must be supported by:
A majority of the total membership of each house (simple majority), and
At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
State Legislatures:
Ratification: After passing in Parliament, certain types of amendments (like those affecting federalism or states’ powers) require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. Each state legislature considers the amendment and votes on it.
Required Majority Thresholds
Simple Majority: A simple majority means more than 50% of members present and voting. This is the standard requirement for most constitutional amendments initiated in Parliament. It ensures that amendments are supported by a majority of the legislators present to vote on the bill.
Special Majority: A special majority is a higher threshold intended to ensure broader support for amendments that are considered more significant or affect fundamental aspects of the constitution. It requires:
A majority of the total membership of each house (simple majority).
At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Rationale for Choosing the Thresholds
Balancing Flexibility and Stability: The simple majority threshold allows for flexibility in amending the constitution to adapt to changing circumstances or societal needs. It ensures that amendments can be passed with strong support from the legislators present at the time of voting.
Protecting Core Principles: The special majority requirement (two-thirds majority of members present and voting) for certain amendments ensures that changes to fundamental aspects of the constitution are supported by a significant consensus across political parties and ideologies. This protects core principles and values enshrined in the constitution.
Federal Considerations: Requiring ratification by state legislatures for certain amendments involving federalism ensures that states have a say in changes that affect their powers and autonomy. This mechanism promotes cooperative federalism and ensures that amendments do not undermine the federal structure.
Historical Context: The thresholds were chosen based on the experiences of other democracies and India’s own historical context. They aim to strike a balance between democratic responsiveness and stability, avoiding frequent and arbitrary changes while allowing for necessary adaptations over time.
In conclusion, the amendment process in India involves careful consideration of majority thresholds in Parliament and ratification by state legislatures. These thresholds reflect a deliberate effort to ensure that constitutional amendments are supported by sufficient consensus and consideration of both national and state-level perspectives. They are designed to uphold the integrity of the constitution while allowing for necessary updates and reforms in response to evolving challenges and aspirations.
See less