Introduction:
The Constitution empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368, while Part III guarantees Fundamental Rights. Through a series of landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has evolved a constitutional doctrine that preserves Parliament’s power to bring about socio-economic reforms while ensuring that Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure of the Constitution remain protected.
Body:
Evolution of Judicial Interpretation on the Amending Power
Parliament’s Amending Power Initially Upheld: The Supreme Court initially held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Example: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965).
Temporary Supremacy of Fundamental Rights: The Court later ruled that Fundamental Rights were beyond Parliament’s amending power.
Example: I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) held that Article 368 conferred only procedural power.
Restoration of Parliament’s Power: Parliament responded by explicitly empowering itself to amend any constitutional provision.
Example: 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368.
Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court upheld Parliament’s amending power but imposed substantive constitutional limitations.
Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that Parliament cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Judicial Review over Constitutional Amendments: Constitutional amendments violating the Basic Structure can be struck down.
Example: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) invalidated parts of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
Continued Constitutional Evolution: The Court has reaffirmed that judicial review and Fundamental Rights remain integral to the Constitution.
Example: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) subjected Ninth Schedule laws to Basic Structure review.
Balancing Parliament’s Amending Power with Fundamental Rights
Preserves Constitutional Flexibility: Parliament retains sufficient authority to amend the Constitution to meet changing societal needs.
Example: 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments strengthened democratic decentralization.
Protects Core Constitutional Values: The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents the erosion of constitutional identity.
Example: Democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and the rule of law are protected.
Safeguards Fundamental Rights: The judiciary ensures that amendments do not destroy the essence of Fundamental Rights.
Example: Minerva Mills reaffirmed the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Maintains Separation of Powers: Judicial review acts as a constitutional check on Parliament’s constituent power.
Example: Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to protect Fundamental Rights.
Promotes Constitutional Supremacy: Neither Parliament nor the judiciary enjoys absolute supremacy; both function within constitutional limits.
Example: The Basic Structure Doctrine balances parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy.
Facilitates Transformative Constitutionalism: The Court allows progressive constitutional amendments while preserving enduring constitutional principles.
Example: Amendments introducing Right to Education (86th Amendment) and GST (101st Amendment) were upheld as they did not violate the Basic Structure.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court has evolved a balanced constitutional framework by recognizing Parliament’s wide amending power while protecting the inviolable Basic Structure and the essence of Fundamental Rights. This harmonious approach has enabled the Constitution to remain both dynamic and enduring, ensuring that democratic governance and constitutional supremacy advance together.