Home/upsc: amendments in indian constitution provisions/Page 2
- Recent Questions
- Most Answered
- Answers
- No Answers
- Most Visited
- Most Voted
- Random
- Bump Question
- New Questions
- Sticky Questions
- Polls
- Followed Questions
- Favorite Questions
- Recent Questions With Time
- Most Answered With Time
- Answers With Time
- No Answers With Time
- Most Visited With Time
- Most Voted With Time
- Random With Time
- Bump Question With Time
- New Questions With Time
- Sticky Questions With Time
- Polls With Time
- Followed Questions With Time
- Favorite Questions With Time
Discuss the role of the President in the amendment process. What are the President's powers and limitations in approving or withholding consent for a constitutional amendment passed by the Parliament?
In countries where the President plays a significant role in the constitutional amendment process, such as India, the President's involvement is defined by constitutional provisions that outline their authority and limitations. The general aspects of the President's involvement, powers, and limitatiRead more
In countries where the President plays a significant role in the constitutional amendment process, such as India, the President’s involvement is defined by constitutional provisions that outline their authority and limitations.
The general aspects of the President’s involvement, powers, and limitations in such scenarios is :-
1. Initiation of Amendments:
– In India, amendments to the Constitution can be initiated by either House of Parliament (article 368). There is no direct role for the President in initiating amendments.
2. Passage by Parliament :
– Once an amendment is passed by both Houses of Parliament (with a special majority as required by Article 368 of the Indian Constitution), it is sent to the President for their assent ( article 111).
3. President’s Power to Assent :
– According to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, amendments require the President’s assent to become law. The President’s role here is largely ceremonial; they do not have the power to withhold assent(article 111).
4. No Veto Power:
– Unlike some other countries with a presidential system, the Indian President does not possess a veto power over constitutional amendments ( article 111). Their role is to signify formal approval.
5. Constitutional Safeguards :
– While the President cannot veto amendments, they are expected to ensure that the amendment process has been followed correctly and that it adheres to the basic structure and spirit of the Constitution. There have been instances where the President has returned amendment bills for reconsideration if procedural irregularities were observed.
6. Time Limits:
– The President must act within a reasonable time frame to either assent to an amendment or refer it back for reconsideration. This ensures timely implementation of the amendment.
7. Constitutional Convention:
– In India, there is a convention that the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to constitutional amendments. This convention upholds the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
The President typically has a ceremonial role, their involvement in the amendment process is crucial for formal approval. However, their powers are usually limited to ensuring the process adheres to constitutional norms rather than exercising discretion over the content of the amendments themselves.
See lessAnalyze the impact of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, which decentralized power and strengthened local governance. How have these amendments transformed the landscape of grassroots democracy in India?
73rd and 74th amendment act added a new part 9 and 9A to the constitution.It improved the governance of panchayats and municipalities through decentralisation Significance of 73rd Constitutional Amendment act 1.) Forms a part of Article 40 of DPSP 2.) The act gives constitutional status to PanchayatRead more
73rd and 74th amendment act added a new part 9 and 9A to the constitution.It improved the governance of panchayats and municipalities through decentralisation
Significance of 73rd Constitutional Amendment act
1.) Forms a part of Article 40 of DPSP
2.) The act gives constitutional status to Panchayati raj
3.)Increases the participation of women by giving them reservation
4.) Provides an holistic approach towards decentralisation(Gram Sabha,Disqualifications etc..)
Significance of 74th Constitutional amendment act
1.) Gave constitutional status to municipalities and also added 12th schedule to the constitution
2.)Enabled the participation of people in municipalities to elect their representatives through a defined procedure
3.) Provides for decentralised administration which is helpful for town planning, land use and construction of buildings,economic and social development etc..
Transformation of landscape of grassroot democracy
1.) Decentralisation of authority
2.) Removal of red tapism and delays in the administration
3.) Enabling them to raise their own finances so that they can become self reliant and independent
4.)Increasing the participation of people in administration and decision making
Conclusion : 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendment are the heart and soul of local self government in India.They transformed the grassroot democracy and paved a step towards Gandhian idea of village autonomy and self sufficiency
See lessExamine the potential for using the amendment process to address contemporary challenges, such as environmental protection, technological advancements, and emerging human rights concerns. How can the Constitution be updated to remain relevant in the face of societal changes?
The amendment process of the Indian Constitution provides a means to address contemporary challenges and ensure the document's continued relevance in the face of societal changes. The Constitution has been amended several times since its adoption in 1950, demonstrating its flexibility and the abilitRead more
The amendment process of the Indian Constitution provides a means to address contemporary challenges and ensure the document’s continued relevance in the face of societal changes. The Constitution has been amended several times since its adoption in 1950, demonstrating its flexibility and the ability of the legislature to respond to evolving needs.
1.Environmental Protection:
2.Technological Advancements:
3. Emerging Human Rights Concerns:
4.Ensuring Relevance:
It’s important to note that the amendment process in India is designed to strike a balance between flexibility and stability. The Constitution requires a special majority (two-thirds of the members present and voting) in both Houses of Parliament, along with the ratification by at least half of the state legislatures for certain types of amendments.
This high threshold for constitutional amendments ensures that the Constitution is not altered lightly and that any changes garner substantial consensus among the political stakeholders and the public. This approach helps maintain the Constitution’s integrity and long-term relevance, while still allowing for adaptations to address contemporary challenges.
See lessExamine the role of political parties and regional interests in shaping the amendment process. How have party politics and regional dynamics influenced the passage 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 lessAssess the argument that the Constitution should be amended more frequently to keep pace with the evolving needs of the nation. What are the potential risks and benefits of a more active amendment culture?
The argument that the Constitution should be amended more frequently to keep pace with the evolving needs of the nation is based on the premise that societal, economic, and political landscapes change over time, necessitating updates to the foundational legal document. Here, we assess this argumentRead more
The argument that the Constitution should be amended more frequently to keep pace with the evolving needs of the nation is based on the premise that societal, economic, and political landscapes change over time, necessitating updates to the foundational legal document. Here, we assess this argument by examining the potential risks and benefits of a more active amendment culture.
Benefits of a More Active Amendment Culture
Relevance and Adaptability:
Addressing Contemporary Issues: Frequent amendments can help address emerging issues such as technological advancements, environmental concerns, and changing social norms.
Reflecting Current Values: As societal values evolve, constitutional amendments can help enshrine these changes, making the Constitution more relevant to contemporary society.
Democratic Responsiveness:
Public Participation: A more active amendment culture can encourage greater public engagement and participation in the democratic process, fostering a sense of ownership and involvement.
Policy Innovations: It allows for the incorporation of innovative policies and governance models that can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government.
Rectifying Anomalies:
Correcting Flaws: Amendments can rectify ambiguities, outdated provisions, and legal anomalies that may have been overlooked during the original drafting or that have become apparent over time.
Judicial Clarifications: They can address issues raised by judicial interpretations that may have strayed from the original intent of the framers or that need reconsideration due to changed circumstances.
Risks of a More Active Amendment Culture
Stability and Continuity:
Constitutional Stability: Frequent amendments can undermine the stability and continuity of the Constitution, leading to a perception of fluidity and unpredictability in the legal framework.
Erosion of Foundational Principles: There is a risk that the core principles and values of the Constitution may be eroded through frequent changes, potentially destabilizing the foundational legal and moral fabric of the nation.
Politicization of Amendments:
Political Manipulation: Amendments can be driven by short-term political interests rather than long-term national interests, leading to politicization and potential abuse of the amendment process.
Majoritarianism: Frequent amendments may reflect the will of the majority, potentially marginalizing minority views and interests, thereby undermining the principle of inclusive governance.
Administrative and Legal Challenges:
Implementation Issues: Constant changes to the Constitution can create administrative and legal challenges in implementation, leading to confusion and inefficiency in governance.
Judicial Overload: The judiciary may be overwhelmed with cases interpreting new amendments, leading to increased litigation and potential delays in justice delivery.
Dilution of Rigorous Debate:
Superficial Reforms: The pressure to keep pace with evolving needs may lead to superficial or poorly thought-out amendments, bypassing rigorous debate and scrutiny.
See lessQuality of Legislation: The quality of legislative processes may decline if amendments are rushed without thorough consideration of their long-term implications.
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 Constitution?
The Arguments for a More Flexible versus a More Rigid Amendment Process The debate around the flexibility versus rigidity of the constitutional amendment process in India involves weighing the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution. Arguments in Favor of a More Flexible Amendment PrRead more
The Arguments for a More Flexible versus a More Rigid Amendment Process
The debate around the flexibility versus rigidity of the constitutional amendment process in India involves weighing the need for stability and adaptability of the Constitution.
Arguments in Favor of a More Flexible Amendment Process:
Responsiveness to Change: A more flexible amendment process would allow the Constitution to be more responsive to evolving societal, economic, and political circumstances. This could ensure the Constitution’s continued relevance and prevent it from becoming outdated or irrelevant.
Addressing Emerging Challenges: A flexible amendment process could enable the Constitution to be updated more readily to address new and emerging challenges, such as technological advancements, environmental concerns, or global developments.
Maintaining Legitimacy: If the amendment process is perceived as too rigid, it may erode the Constitution’s legitimacy, as the people and their elected representatives may feel that the Constitution is not adequately reflecting their will and aspirations.
Preventing Constitutional Ossification: A rigid amendment process could lead to the Constitution becoming ossified and unable to adapt to changing realities, which could undermine its effectiveness and long-term viability.
Arguments in Favor of a More Rigid Amendment Process:
Preserving Stability and Continuity: A more rigid amendment process helps to ensure the stability and continuity of the constitutional order, which is essential for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Safeguarding the Basic Structure: A rigid amendment process, with the basic structure doctrine in place, can help to protect the core principles and values of the Constitution from being easily altered or undermined.
Preventing Hasty or Arbitrary Changes: A more rigid amendment process can help to prevent hasty or arbitrary changes to the Constitution, which could be driven by short-term political considerations or the whims of the ruling party.
Promoting Consensus-Building: A more rigorous amendment process, requiring a higher threshold of support, can encourage greater consensus-building and deliberation among different stakeholders, ensuring that changes to the Constitution have broad-based support.
Balancing Stability and Adaptability:
The challenge lies in striking the right balance between stability and adaptability in the constitutional amendment process.
A completely rigid amendment process may risk the Constitution becoming outdated and disconnected from the evolving needs of the country. However, a highly flexible process could undermine the foundational principles and values that the Constitution is intended to protect.
The courts have played a crucial role in this balance, through the development of the basic structure doctrine and the interpretation of the scope and limits of the amendatory power. The courts have sought to preserve the core elements of the Constitution while allowing for necessary changes.
Ultimately, the appropriate level of flexibility or rigidity in the amendment process should be determined through a careful consideration of the specific context, the need for stability and adaptability, and the broader constitutional and political landscape.
See lessCritically analyze the debate around the inclusion of the amendatory power within the basic structure of the Constitution. What are the arguments on both sides of this debate, and how have the courts approached this issue?
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.
See lessHowever, 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.
Examine the distinction between the amending power under Article 368 and the power to make new Constitutions or completely replace the existing one. What are the legal and political implications of this distinction?
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.
See lessDegree 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.
Compare the amendment procedures in India with those in other major democracies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. What are the similarities and differences, and what insights can be drawn from these comparative analyses?
Amendment Procedures in India, United States, and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis India Procedure: Amendments to the Indian Constitution are governed by Article 368. Initiation: Amendments can be initiated in either House of Parliament and require a special majority (i.e., majority of the totRead more
Amendment Procedures in India, United States, and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis
India
Procedure: Amendments to the Indian Constitution are governed by Article 368.
Initiation: Amendments can be initiated in either House of Parliament and require a special majority (i.e., majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).
Ratification: Some amendments require ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
Amendment Scope: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but subject to the basic structure doctrine.
United States
Procedure: Amendments are proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Ratification: Amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or conventions.
Amendment Scope: Amendments can modify any part of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
United Kingdom
Procedure: The UK does not have a codified constitution; amendments are made through Acts of Parliament.
Parliamentary Sovereignty: Parliament has supreme authority and can amend laws, including constitutional conventions.
Constitutional Conventions: While not legally binding, conventions limit parliamentary power in practice, such as the Salisbury Convention (House of Lords does not oppose government manifesto commitments).
Similarities and Differences
Initiation: Both India and the US require a supermajority to propose amendments, whereas the UK allows amendments through simple majority in Parliament.
Scope: India and the US have formal procedures to amend their written constitutions, whereas the UK’s constitution is flexible and evolves through Acts of Parliament and conventions.
Ratification: The US requires ratification by states, which is akin to India’s requirement for state legislature ratification in certain cases.
Amendment Flexibility: India’s basic structure doctrine restricts amendments that alter core principles, while the US and UK have more flexible amendment processes, albeit with different procedural requirements.
Insights
Flexibility vs. Rigidity: The US and UK systems allow for more flexible amendments, enabling adaptation to changing circumstances more readily. In contrast, India’s rigidity, especially with the basic structure doctrine, ensures stability but limits swift constitutional changes.
Democratic Processes: All three systems reflect the importance of democratic consensus in amending foundational laws, albeit through different procedural mechanisms.
Judicial Review: India’s judicial review power to strike down amendments conflicting with the basic structure highlights a robust check on parliamentary sovereignty, absent in the US and UK.
Historical Context: The US amendment process, designed to prevent hasty changes, contrasts with the UK’s reliance on conventions and evolving interpretations.
Conclusion
See lessComparative analysis of amendment procedures in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom reveals diverse approaches balancing constitutional stability with adaptability. India’s structured approach guards against rapid changes, while the US and UK systems allow for more responsive updates. Insights from these comparisons underscore the significance of balancing democratic principles with institutional safeguards to uphold constitutional integrity and adaptability in diverse democratic contexts.
Analyze the evolution of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, as propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case. What are the key features that constitute the basic structure, and how has this doctrine limited the Parliament's amending power?
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
See lessThe 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.