Que. “The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.” Discuss critically.
“संविधान में संशोधन करने के संसद के स्वैच्छिक अधिकार पर भारत का उच्चतम न्यायालय नियंत्रण रखता है।” समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए।
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Introduce the role of the “Supreme Court” in reviewing amendments to the “Indian Constitution” and its check on “arbitrary power” by Parliament.
(ii) Main Body: Discuss how the Supreme Court ensures that the “Parliamentary amendment power” aligns with the “basic structure” doctrine, preventing misuse.
(iii) Conclusion: Conclude by reaffirming the Supreme Court’s critical role in maintaining the “integrity” of the Constitution through judicial oversight over Parliament’s amendment power.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India plays a pivotal role in preventing the “arbitrary power” of Parliament in amending the Constitution. Through its judicial review, the Court ensures that Parliament’s amendments comply with the “basic structure” doctrine, preserving the core constitutional values.
The Constitutional Amendment Power of Parliament
(i) Constitutional Authority under Article 368: Under Article 368, the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution. This provision empowers Parliament to make changes to the “Fundamental Rights,” the “distribution of powers,” and the “structure of governance,” ensuring the Constitution remains flexible and adaptable.
(ii) Expansive Amendment Power: The amendment power of Parliament is broad, allowing modifications in any part of the Constitution. However, this power is subject to the Constitution’s core principles, including “democracy,” “secularism,” and “federalism,” as well as the structure within which they operate.
(iii) Limitation of Unlimited Amendment Power: While the Constitution gives Parliament wide-ranging powers to amend, this authority is not without limitations. The potential for “abuse of power” arises when amendments undermine the integrity or the foundational structure of the Constitution. This is where judicial oversight is crucial.
(iv) Need for Safeguards: Given Parliament’s wide power to amend the Constitution, the need for “checks and balances” arises. The “Supreme Court” of India plays a crucial role in ensuring that the amendments do not violate the Constitution’s basic principles.
(v) Theoretical Abuse of Power: In theory, Parliament could pass amendments that are politically motivated, weakening democratic values or curbing fundamental rights. Judicial review ensures that such amendments are scrutinized, preventing misuse of the amendment power.
The Supreme Court’s Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine
(i) Introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case): In the landmark “Kesavananda Bharati” case (1973), the Supreme Court laid down the “basic structure” doctrine. The Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental principles—forming a key safeguard against arbitrary amendments.
(ii) Defining the Basic Structure: The “basic structure” includes principles like “democracy,” “secularism,” “judicial independence,” “federalism,” and the “separation of powers.” These elements are integral to the Constitution and cannot be amended in ways that would compromise the Constitution’s identity.
(iii) Scope of Judicial Review: The Supreme Court has the authority to review any constitutional amendment and determine whether it conforms to the basic structure. If an amendment is found to violate this structure, the Court has the power to strike it down, ensuring that Parliament does not exceed its authority.
(iv) Key Cases Reinforcing the Basic Structure Doctrine: Apart from “Kesavananda Bharati,” cases like “Minerva Mills” (1980), “Waman Rao” (1981), and “Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain” (1975) have further clarified and reinforced the basic structure doctrine. These decisions ensure that Parliament’s power remains within the constitutional framework.
(v) Protection Against Arbitrary Amendments: The Court’s judicial review is a mechanism to protect the Constitution from being arbitrarily altered by political majorities in Parliament. It ensures that even with the power to amend, Parliament cannot violate the Constitution’s fundamental principles.
The Role of the Supreme Court in Maintaining Constitutional Integrity
(i) Guardian of Constitutional Values: The Supreme Court, as the “guardian of the Constitution,” ensures that amendments made by Parliament do not undermine its core values. By checking the legislative amendments, the Court protects the integrity of the Constitution and the democratic framework it establishes.
(ii) Balancing Parliamentary Power and Judicial Oversight: While Parliament is vested with the authority to amend the Constitution, the Court ensures that such powers are not exercised in a manner that destabilizes the constitutional order. This “balance of powers” safeguards against the concentration of unchecked power.
(iii) Protection of Fundamental Rights: The “fundamental rights” of citizens are central to the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ensures that constitutional amendments do not dilute or infringe upon these rights, thus preserving the core rights guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution.
(iv) Judicial Independence and the Separation of Powers: The independence of the judiciary is another key element of the basic structure. The Supreme Court protects judicial independence from any amendments that may attempt to undermine the autonomy of the judiciary or weaken the system of checks and balances.
(v) Public Accountability of Parliament: By exercising judicial review, the Supreme Court ensures that Parliament’s actions remain accountable to the public and do not lead to arbitrary changes in the Constitution. This review ensures that amendments are in line with constitutional morality and public interest.
Recent Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments
(i) Recent Amendments and Judicial Scrutiny: Several recent constitutional amendments have been subject to judicial review, including the “103rd Constitutional Amendment” (2019) related to “economic reservations” and the “104th Amendment” (2019) dealing with “reservation in legislatures.” These amendments were scrutinized for their impact on the “basic structure.”
(ii) Public Interest and Judicial Decisions: The Supreme Court evaluates whether amendments are in the public interest and conform to the larger democratic principles of the Constitution. For instance, in the case of the “Constitutional Amendment to grant reservations,” the Court examined whether the amendments adversely impacted the “equality” principle.
(iii) Political Context and Court’s Independence: The Court must also consider the political context of an amendment and ensure that Parliament’s actions do not reflect partisan interests that could distort the Constitution’s democratic foundations. The Court safeguards against amendments that serve temporary political interests.
(iv) Impact of Judicial Review on Parliamentary Sovereignty: Although the Court’s review is crucial in preserving constitutional integrity, some critics argue that judicial review can infringe upon “Parliamentary sovereignty.” However, the Court justifies its actions by emphasizing the preservation of the Constitution’s core principles over unchecked legislative power.
(v) Evolving Jurisprudence: The evolving jurisprudence of the Court has continually expanded the scope of judicial review in relation to constitutional amendments. The Court’s decisions reflect a deeper commitment to preserving the Constitution’s values in an ever-changing political landscape.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India ensures that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is exercised within the boundaries of the “basic structure.” Through judicial review, it prevents the arbitrary alteration of the Constitution, safeguarding democratic principles and individual rights.
