Effectively safeguarding a constitution against amendments that could undermine fundamental rights requires a combination of legal, institutional, and societal measures: Strong Fundamental Principles: Ensure that fundamental rights are enshrined as core principles that cannot be amended easily or wiRead more
Effectively safeguarding a constitution against amendments that could undermine fundamental rights requires a combination of legal, institutional, and societal measures:
- Strong Fundamental Principles: Ensure that fundamental rights are enshrined as core principles that cannot be amended easily or without stringent procedures. This might include requiring a supermajority vote, a referendum, or judicial review to amend certain rights.
- Separation of Powers: Establish a robust system of checks and balances where the judiciary has the authority to review and strike down amendments that violate fundamental rights. This requires an independent judiciary that is capable of interpreting the constitution impartially.
- Public Awareness and Education: Foster a culture of constitutionalism where citizens understand and value their fundamental rights. Educated and engaged citizens are more likely to resist attempts to undermine constitutional rights through amendments.
- International Standards and Commitments: Align constitutional provisions with international human rights standards and treaties, which can provide additional protection and norms against retrogressive amendments.
- Political Consensus Building: Encourage broad political consensus on the importance of protecting fundamental rights. Political parties and leaders should prioritize the constitution’s integrity over short-term gains.
- Amendment Safeguards: Implement procedural safeguards such as requiring amendments to undergo rigorous scrutiny, public consultation, and possibly time delays to prevent hasty changes that could harm fundamental rights.
By implementing these measures, a constitution can be fortified against amendments aimed at undermining fundamental rights, ensuring its enduring protection and relevance in safeguarding democratic principles and individual liberties.
See less
This judgment of basic structure doctrine in the case of Kesavananda Bharathi Sripadagalvaru & Ors v State of Kerala & Anr (1973) was a landmark judgement to determine the change of subsequent constitutional amendments in the country of India. It holds that while the Parliament can alter theRead more
This judgment of basic structure doctrine in the case of Kesavananda Bharathi Sripadagalvaru & Ors v State of Kerala & Anr (1973) was a landmark judgement to determine the change of subsequent constitutional amendments in the country of India. It holds that while the Parliament can alter the Constitution, the fundamental framework or Character of Constitution, meaning the principles of democracy, secularism, federal structure, and the rule of law cannot be removed by the Parliament.
This doctrine restricts the Parliament which is advantageous to preserve the pure form of the constitution. It also helps the judiciary to scrutinize the amendments and set them aside if they are against the spirit of the Constitution, as in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) connected with the 42nd Amendment.
Consequently, as per the basic structure, the doctrine shields the rights from gradual erosion by amendments while maintaining the Constitution’s stability. It also maintains a proper balance with the legislative branch to ensure that one does not encroach on the powers of the other and dilute key constitutional provisions. Altogether, the basic structure doctrine has come out as a very effective tool in the quest to safeguard the framework of the constitution in India.
See less