Q35. The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Discuss critically. GS-II: POLITY (UPSC CSE 2013) (150 Words/10 Marks)

Answer:

THE INTRODUCTION:

The Indian Constitution provides for a parliamentary system of government that is federal in structure with unitary features. While the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court, as the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, ensures that amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

THE BODY:

Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution:

• • Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal of any provision. However, this power is subject to certain limitations, particularly those established by the judiciary to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Role of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has established several doctrines and principles to ensure that the Parliament does not misuse its amending power:

• • Basic Structure Doctrine: The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which holds that while the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This doctrine was reaffirmed in subsequent cases such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), where the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment for violating the basic structure.
  • Judicial Review: The power of judicial review allows the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, a decision that was later modified by the Kesavananda Bharati case to allow amendments that do not alter the basic structure.
  • Separation of Powers: The doctrine of separation of powers ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government operate independently and do not encroach upon each other’s functions. This principle was emphasized in cases like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which limited the President’s power to dismiss state governments arbitrarily.

Instances of Supreme Court’s Intervention

• • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
  • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reiterated that amendments cannot destroy the basic structure, striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment.
  • Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to invalidate a constitutional amendment that placed election disputes involving the Prime Minister beyond judicial scrutiny.
  • Waman Rao Union of India (1981): Reiterated the Basic Structure Doctrine and held that amendments made to the 9th Schedule after the Kesavananda judgment are subject to judicial review.
  • Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Affirmed that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Limited the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and emphasized the importance of federalism as part of the basic structure.

THE CONCLUSION:

While the Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in ensuring this power is not utilized arbitrarily or to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The balance between the Parliament’s authority to respond to changing societal needs and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to protect the Constitution’s basic structure is a cornerstone of India’s vibrant democracy. This dynamic relationship continues to evolve, shaping India’s constitutional and political narrative.