The statement “Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure” reflects a key principle established by the Indian judiciary regarding the power of constitutional amendments in India. This principle has its origins in the landmark Supreme Court case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Here’s a detailed commentary on this principle:

Context and Background:

1. Constitutional Amendments:
   • The Indian Constitution provides for its own amendment through Article 368. The Parliament of India has the power to amend the Constitution, which is a common feature in many democratic countries. This power allows for the Constitution to be updated or modified to meet changing circumstances and requirements.
2. Kesavananda Bharati Case:
   • The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that fundamentally shaped the interpretation of constitutional amendments. The case challenged the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly in relation to its basic features.

Basic Structure Doctrine:

1. Doctrine Formation:
   • In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The Court established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments.
2. Core Features:
   • The basic structure includes essential elements such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, democracy, and the protection of fundamental rights. These principles are deemed essential to the Constitution’s identity and framework.
3. Reasoning:
   • The reasoning behind this doctrine is to ensure that the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution remain intact despite amendments. This protects the Constitution from being altered in a manner that would undermine its fundamental ethos and democratic framework.

Implications and Impact:

1. Parliamentary Power:
   • The doctrine places a limit on the power of Parliament. While Parliament can amend various provisions of the Constitution to address practical and contemporary issues, it cannot use this power to fundamentally alter the Constitution’s core principles.
2. Judicial Review:
   • The Supreme Court’s role in interpreting and upholding the basic structure doctrine reinforces the judiciary’s power of judicial review. This ensures that constitutional amendments are in line with the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
3. Stability and Integrity:
   • By protecting the basic structure, the doctrine ensures stability and continuity of the Constitution. It prevents potential misuse of amendment powers that could compromise the Constitution’s integrity and democratic values.

Conclusion:

The principle that “Indian Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure” serves as a safeguard to preserve the essential framework and values of the Constitution. It balances the need for constitutional adaptability with the necessity to maintain core democratic principles. This doctrine underscores the enduring nature of the Constitution’s foundational principles and provides a crucial check on the power of constitutional amendments.