The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on the arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Discuss critically.
Introduction
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution (Article 368) is vital for its adaptability. However, the Supreme Court, as the Constitution's guardian, critically checks this power to prevent arbitrary changes that could undermine its foundational principles.
Body
Evolution and Basic Structure Doctrine
- Initially, the SC allowed wide amending power (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh).
- Golaknath restricted it, subjecting amendments to fundamental rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', affirming Parliament's power but prohibiting alteration of the Constitution's fundamental features. This prevents destruction of core values like democracy, secularism, and federalism.
Critical Appraisal
- Critics argue the doctrine is vague, leading to judicial overreach and questioning democratic legitimacy as an unelected judiciary defines the 'basic structure'.
- Concerns exist about its potential to impede legislative will and create judicial supremacy.
Conclusion
The Basic Structure Doctrine, while debated, ensures constitutional supremacy. It effectively balances Parliament's power to evolve the Constitution with the imperative to preserve its foundational identity and core values.
155 words · target ~150
Requires presenting arguments for and against the Supreme Court's role in checking Parliament's amending power, evaluating its implications and effectiveness.
Suggested structure
Introduction: Parliament's amending power and SC's role as constitutional guardian
Evolution of Judicial Review on Constitutional Amendments (Key Cases)
The Basic Structure Doctrine: Origin and Scope
How the SC's check limits arbitrary power of Parliament
Critical Appraisal: Concerns and criticisms of the Basic Structure Doctrine
Conclusion: Balancing parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy
Key points
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, but not to destroy its basic structure.
The Supreme Court, through cases like Shankari Prasad, Golaknath, and Kesavananda Bharati, evolved its stance on judicial review of amendments.
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', limiting Parliament's amending power.
This doctrine acts as a check on arbitrary power, preventing Parliament from altering fundamental constitutional features like democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial review itself.
Criticisms include the doctrine's undefined nature, potential for judicial overreach, and questions of democratic legitimacy.
The doctrine ensures constitutional supremacy and protects core values, balancing legislative power with constitutional integrity.
Common mistakes
Not explaining the evolution of judicial review leading to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Failing to provide a balanced critical perspective, either only praising or only criticizing the doctrine.
Confusing the Supreme Court's power to strike down ordinary laws with its power to review constitutional amendments.
Lack of specific case law references, especially Kesavananda Bharati case.
Difficulty: Medium — The question demands knowledge of specific constitutional cases (Kesavananda Bharati), the evolution of judicial review, and the ability to critically analyze the implications of the Basic Structure Doctrine, balancing parliamentary sovereignty with judicial guardianship.