Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Examine the effects of the 42nd Amendment on the balance of power between the legislature, executive branch, and courts. The 42nd Amendment is also referred to as the “Constitution’s funeral.” What efforts were made to reverse the impacts of this ...
Describe the procedure for modifying the Indian Constitution according to Article 368. What are the distinct processes for changing the various sections of the Constitution, and why do these procedures differ?
The process of amending the Constitution of India is outlined in Article 368. The Indian Constitution provides for a flexible amendment procedure, with varying degrees of difficulty for amending different parts of the Constitution. This is to ensure that the fundamental structure and core principlesRead more
The process of amending the Constitution of India is outlined in Article 368. The Indian Constitution provides for a flexible amendment procedure, with varying degrees of difficulty for amending different parts of the Constitution. This is to ensure that the fundamental structure and core principles of the Constitution are protected, while also allowing for necessary changes to be made.
There are two primary procedures for amending the Constitution:
Simple Majority Amendment:
This procedure applies to the majority of the provisions in the Constitution.
An amendment can be initiated in either house of Parliament.
The amendment bill must be passed by a simple majority (more than 50%) of the total membership of each house of Parliament and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each house present and voting.
This amendment process is relatively straightforward and allows for necessary changes to the Constitution to be made.
Special Majority Amendment:
This procedure applies to specific parts of the Constitution, such as the provisions related to the federal structure of the government, the representation of states in Parliament, and the powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
An amendment bill must be passed by a special majority of the Parliament, which requires a majority of the total membership of each house and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of each house present and voting.
Additionally, such an amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states.
This more stringent amendment procedure is in place to protect the basic structure and federal nature of the Indian Constitution.
The rationale behind these varying amendment procedures is to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. The simple majority amendment process allows for necessary changes to the Constitution, while the special majority amendment process ensures that the fundamental features and core principles of the Constitution are not easily altered.
The special majority amendment procedure is designed to make it more difficult to amend certain critical parts of the Constitution, such as those related to the federal structure and the powers of the judiciary. This is to prevent the concentration of power and to safeguard the core principles of the Constitution, which are crucial for the effective functioning of the Indian democratic system.
By having these different amendment procedures, the Constitution aims to maintain a balance between the need for change and the need for stability, ensuring that the Constitution remains responsive to the evolving needs of the country while also preserving its core values and principles.
See lessExamine critically the applicability of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act in modifying the reservations policy as a means of achieving India’s social justice goals.
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and public employment, marking a significant shift in India's reservation policy. Earlier, reservations were aimed at addressing historical injustices and socialRead more
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and public employment, marking a significant shift in India’s reservation policy. Earlier, reservations were aimed at addressing historical injustices and social disadvantages faced by Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). This amendment extends benefits based on economic criteria, regardless of caste. Its relevance lies in acknowledging economic hardship as a barrier to social mobility, broadening the scope of social justice. The Supporters argue that it addresses the needs of economically disadvantaged groups who do not fall under existing reserved categories, promoting inclusive growth. Critics says that this economic-based reservation may dilute the original intention of reservations, which is to rectify systemic social discrimination. Additionally, the 10% EWS quota raises questions about the practical implementation and potential overlap with existing quotas, which already account for 50% of seats. The amendment also risks perpetuating the reliance on quotas as a solution, rather than addressing structural inequalities through comprehensive socio-economic reforms. Thus,the 103rd Amendment aims to expand the ambit of social justice, its long-term impact on achieving genuine equity and inclusion remains to be critically evaluated.
See lessConsider the differences between the authority granted by Article 368 to change a Constitution and the authority to create new ones or to replace the current one in its entirety. What ramifications does this divide have for law and politics?
The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land: The Amending Power under Article 368: Article 368 of thRead more
The Distinction between the Amending Power under Article 368 and the Power to Make New Constitutions or Replace the Existing One
The Indian Constitution provides for two distinct mechanisms for making changes to the fundamental law of the land:
The Amending Power under Article 368:
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution.
This power allows for specific changes or additions to be made to the existing constitutional provisions.
Amendments under Article 368 require a special majority in the Parliament (two-thirds of members present and voting, and an absolute majority of the total membership of each House).
Certain provisions of the Constitution, like the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution, are considered unamendable under this power.
The Power to Make New Constitutions or Completely Replace the Existing One:
This power goes beyond the scope of Article 368 and allows for the creation of an entirely new Constitution or the complete replacement of the existing one.
This power is typically exercised by a Constituent Assembly or a similar body with the specific mandate to draft a new Constitution.
The process of making a new Constitution or replacing the existing one is not subject to the constraints of Article 368 and usually involves a more extensive and involved process.
It may require the dissolution of the existing political order and the establishment of a new one.
Legal and Political Implications of this Distinction:
Scope of Changes: The amending power under Article 368 is limited to making specific changes or additions to the existing constitutional provisions. In contrast, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one allows for a more comprehensive and fundamental overhaul of the entire legal and political framework.
Degree of Difficulty: Amending the Constitution under Article 368 is generally considered a more straightforward process, as it requires a special majority in the Parliament. Creating a new Constitution or replacing the existing one, on the other hand, typically involves a more complex and challenging process, often requiring the convening of a Constituent Assembly or a similar body.
Preservation of Continuity: Amendments under Article 368 aim to preserve the overall continuity and stability of the existing constitutional framework, while the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may involve a more fundamental disruption of the political and legal order.
Implications for Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure: The Supreme Court has interpreted the basic structure of the Constitution as being unamendable under Article 368. However, the power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one may potentially allow for a reconsideration of the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Political Significance: The power to make a new Constitution or replace the existing one is typically associated with significant political events, such as the creation of a new nation or a major constitutional crisis. The exercise of this power can have far-reaching political implications, potentially leading to the reconfiguration of the power dynamics and the establishment of a new political order.
In summary, the distinction between the amending power under Article 368 and the power to make new Constitutions or completely replace the existing one lies in the scope, degree of difficulty, preservation of continuity, implications for fundamental rights and the basic structure, and the political significance associated with each process. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal and political dynamics of constitutional change in India.
Examine the effects of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, which improved municipal governance and decentralized authority. What changes have these reforms brought about in India’s grassroots democracy?
The 73rd and the 74th amendment acts were being implemented in the democratic nation and the fedaral structure of the nation were introduced in order to have a decentralized government so that the powers of the central government and the state government and to the local bodies even this came into eRead more
The 73rd and the 74th amendment acts were being implemented in the democratic nation and the fedaral structure of the nation were introduced in order to have a decentralized government so that the powers of the central government and the state government and to the local bodies even this came into effect on the 24th April 1993 and the 1st June 1993 respectively .
73rd amendment act :
This is applicable in the rural areas the PANCHAHAYTI RAJ SYSTEM wherein the state government was under the constitutional obligation . This was adopted in the 11th schedule of the Indian constitution . The members of the panchayat are elected directly by the people and the head of the panchayat is known as the sarpanch . Seats are also reserved for the SC and ST and for the chairpersons of the panchayat at all levels of the panchayat along with one- third positions for women folk .
74th AMENDMENT ACT :
This is basically found in the urban areas adopted in the year 19192 constituted of the municipalities i.e. the Nagar panchayat , Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council herein the people are directly elected by he people in the municipal area divided into wards and ward wise the representatives are chosen. Herein as well SC and St seats are reserved and 1/3rd seats are reserved for the women
IMPLEMENTS OF AMENDMENTS :
This decentralization of power has led to the upliftment of the local communities their problems are been addressed right away from the rural to the urban level from villages, blocks, zilla, wards and so and so this also led to the development of the socities of the local community in terms of industrialization, education, health care women’s position . They get the resources to development and many more.
See less
Examine the arguments for and against the amendatory power’s incorporation into the Constitution’s basic framework critically. Which sides of this argument are making, and how have the courts addressed this matter?
The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides. ArgRead more
The Debate around the Inclusion of the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure of the Constitution
The debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power under Article 368 within the basic structure of the Indian Constitution is a complex and long-standing one, with arguments on both sides.
Arguments in Favor of Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:
Preserving the Fundamental Character of the Constitution: Proponents argue that the ability to amend the Constitution is a fundamental feature that shapes the character and identity of the Constitution. Excluding it from the basic structure could undermine the Constitution’s integrity and stability.
Preventing Arbitrary Amendments: Incorporating the amendatory power within the basic structure could prevent arbitrary or unchecked amendments that could undermine the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.
Ensuring Meaningful Deliberation: Treating the amendatory power as part of the basic structure would require a higher threshold for constitutional changes, ensuring more meaningful deliberation and consensus-building.
Safeguarding the Constituent Power: The argument is that the constituent power, which is the ultimate source of the Constitution’s legitimacy, should not be restricted or diminished by excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure.
Arguments Against Including the Amendatory Power within the Basic Structure:
Flexibility and Adaptability: Opponents argue that excluding the amendatory power from the basic structure would allow for the Constitution to be more flexible and adaptable to changing societal and political needs.
Preventing Constitutional Ossification: Limiting the amendatory power could lead to the Constitution becoming ossified and unable to respond to evolving circumstances, undermining its relevance and legitimacy.
Respecting the Will of the People: There is an argument that the people, through their elected representatives, should have the power to amend the Constitution, and that this power should not be unduly restricted.
Judicial Overreach: Concerns have been raised that including the amendatory power within the basic structure could be seen as judicial overreach, as it would place significant limitations on the Parliament’s constitutional amending power.
The Courts’ Approach to the Issue:
The Supreme Court of India has had a complex and evolving approach to the issue of the amendatory power and the basic structure doctrine.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court held that the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was subject to the basic structure doctrine, meaning that certain core features of the Constitution could not be amended.
However, the Court did not explicitly include the amendatory power itself within the basic structure.
In subsequent cases, such as the Minerva Mills case (1980) and the Kihoto Hollohan case (1992), the Court has further elaborated on the relationship between the amendatory power and the basic structure.
The Court has generally upheld the view that the basic structure doctrine applies to the exercise of the amendatory power, but it has not provided a definitive and comprehensive resolution to the debate.
The debate continues, with legal scholars and constitutional experts offering different perspectives on the appropriate balance between the need for constitutional flexibility and the preservation of the Constitution’s fundamental character and values.
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?
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 lessAnalyze how regional interests and political parties influenced the amending process. What impact have regional and party politics had on the approval or rejection of proposed constitutional amendments?
Political parties and regional interests play a critical role in shaping the constitutional amendment process in India. The dynamics of party politics and regional considerations significantly influence whether proposed amendments are passed or rejected. Here’s an examination of these influences: RoRead more
Political parties and regional interests play a critical role in shaping the constitutional amendment process in India. The dynamics of party politics and regional considerations significantly influence whether proposed amendments are passed or rejected. Here’s an examination of these influences:
Role of Political Parties in the Amendment Process
Majority Control:
Parliamentary Majority: The ability of a political party or coalition to control a majority in both houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) is crucial for passing constitutional amendments. This majority often reflects the political strength and agenda of the ruling party.
Party Discipline: Political parties often enforce strict discipline during voting on amendments, ensuring that party members vote according to the party line. This can streamline the passage of amendments when the ruling party has a clear majority.
Political Agendas:
Policy Objectives: Parties use constitutional amendments to advance their policy objectives and ideological goals. For example, the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency period under Indira Gandhi’s government reflected the centralizing tendencies of the Congress party at the time.
Electoral Promises: Amendments can also be driven by electoral promises made by political parties to their constituencies, seeking to fulfill commitments made during campaigns.
Opposition Strategy:
Blocking Amendments: Opposition parties can block or delay amendments by mobilizing their members and leveraging their presence in Parliament. The failure to pass the Women’s Reservation Bill in 2010, which sought to reserve 33% of seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women, illustrates how opposition and lack of consensus can hinder amendments.
Negotiations and Compromises: Amendments often require negotiation and compromise with opposition parties to secure the necessary majority, particularly in the Rajya Sabha where regional and opposition parties might have significant influence.
Influence of Regional Interests
Regional Parties:
State-Specific Concerns: Regional parties prioritize the interests of their respective states and regions. They can exert considerable influence over amendments, especially those that impact regional autonomy, resources, and powers. For example, the opposition by regional parties played a role in stalling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill until concerns over revenue-sharing and state autonomy were addressed.
Coalition Politics: In coalition governments, regional parties often hold the balance of power. Their support or opposition can be decisive for the passage of amendments. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments have had to navigate regional interests to secure support for constitutional changes.
Federal Structure:
Protecting State Interests: Amendments that potentially infringe upon state powers or autonomy face strong resistance from regional parties and state governments. The 73rd and 74th Amendments, which aimed to strengthen local self-government through Panchayati Raj Institutions and urban local bodies, faced initial resistance from some states concerned about losing control over local governance.
Case Studies of Amendments Influenced by Political and Regional Dynamics
42nd Amendment (1976):
Context: Passed during the Emergency period, this amendment is often referred to as a “mini-Constitution” due to its extensive changes. It reflected the centralizing agenda of the Congress party and was passed with little opposition due to the suspension of normal democratic processes.
Impact: It led to significant changes, including the curtailment of judicial review powers and the extension of the Lok Sabha’s term. Many of its provisions were later reversed by the 44th Amendment in 1978 following the restoration of democratic norms.
GST Amendment (101st Amendment, 2016):
Regional Negotiations: The passage of the GST Bill required extensive negotiations with state governments and regional parties to address concerns over revenue-sharing and compensation mechanisms. The GST Council, a federal body, was established to facilitate this cooperation.
Women’s Reservation Bill:
Political Opposition: Despite broad public support, the bill faced opposition from various political parties concerned about its impact on male-dominated electoral politics and the representation of specific social groups.
See lessExamine the development of the Supreme Court’s theory of the Constitution’s fundamental structure as it was presented in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case. What are the main elements that make up the fundamental framework, and how has this concept restricted ...
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.
Evaluate the arguments in favor of making the amendment process more flexible versus keeping it more rigid. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach, and how do they balance the need for stability and adaptability of the ...
ARTICLE 368: provides power and procedure to Parliament for constitutional amendments. Supreme Court vs Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) evolved the basic structure of doctrine and consolidated the balance between rigidity and flexibility. Arguments of the Petitioners: They argued that fundamentalRead more
ARTICLE 368: provides power and procedure to Parliament for constitutional amendments.
Supreme Court vs Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) evolved the basic structure of doctrine and consolidated the balance between rigidity and flexibility.
Arguments of the Petitioners: They argued that fundamental rights were violated. He pleaded to the court to receive recourse.
Flexible Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Rigid Amendment Process
Benefits:
Drawbacks:
Balance Approach: Maintains core principle of rigidity, allows flexibility elsewhere. Periodic review ensures relevance, reflecting societal needs for resilience and responsiveness.
Thus, balances the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution.
See less
The 42nd Amendment, enacted in 1976 during the Emergency, is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and far-reaching amendments to the Indian Constitution. It had a significant impact on the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, and its effects were widely debRead more
The 42nd Amendment, enacted in 1976 during the Emergency, is widely regarded as one of the most controversial and far-reaching amendments to the Indian Constitution. It had a significant impact on the balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, and its effects were widely debated in the years that followed.
Impact on the Balance of Power:
The 42nd Amendment significantly enhanced the powers of the Parliament and the Executive at the expense of the Judiciary. Some of the key changes it introduced include:
1.Curtailing Judicial Review: The amendment explicitly stated that the Constitution’s Fundamental Rights could not be challenged on the grounds of violation of basic structure. This severely limited the Judiciary’s power of judicial review, which had been established as a core feature of the Constitution through the Kesavananda Bharati case.
2. Strengthening Parliamentary Supremacy: The amendment gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, without any substantive limitations. This effectively undermined the Judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.
3. Expanding the Directive Principles: The 42nd Amendment added several new Directive Principles, further entrenching the state’s role in the social and economic spheres, and potentially allowing for greater interference in individual rights.
4. Diluting the Federal Structure: The amendment shifted the balance of power towards the Union government, reducing the autonomy of the States and centralizing decision-making authority.
Reshaping the Constitutional Landscape:
The 42nd Amendment was widely criticized for transforming the Indian Constitution from a system of checks and balances to one that favored parliamentary supremacy and executive dominance. It was seen as a blatant attempt to consolidate the ruling party’s power and undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
The amendment’s impact was far-reaching, as it threatened to erode the core principles of India’s constitutional democracy, such as the separation of powers, federalism, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Efforts to Undo the Effects:
In the aftermath of the Emergency, there were concerted efforts to undo the effects of the 42nd Amendment and restore the balance of power between the branches of government.
The 43rd Amendment: Enacted in 1977, this amendment partially reversed the 42nd Amendment, restoring the Judiciary’s power of judicial review and limiting Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution’s basic structure.
The Minerva Mills Case: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the 42nd Amendment’s provisions limiting judicial review were unconstitutional, reaffirming the Judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.
Subsequent Amendments: The 44th, 73rd, and 74th Amendments further decentralized power and strengthened the federal structure, partially undoing the centralizing tendencies of the 42nd Amendment.
Despite these efforts, the legacy of the 42nd Amendment continues to be debated, with ongoing discussions on the appropriate balance of power between the three branches of government and the need to preserve the Constitution’s core principles.
The 42nd Amendment remains a significant chapter in India’s constitutional history, serving as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked legislative power and the importance of maintaining a robust system of checks and balances.
See less