Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is
limited and it cannot be enlarged into absolute
power.” In light of this statement explain whether
Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution
can destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution
by expanding its amending power.
Introduction
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, this power is not absolute, a principle established through judicial pronouncements.
Parliament's Amending Power and the Basic Structure Doctrine
Evolution of Amending Power
Early judicial interpretations in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh upheld Parliament's extensive amending power. However, Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) restricted this, stating Fundamental Rights were unamendable, leading to a constitutional impasse.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Genesis of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) resolved this by propounding the 'Basic Structure Doctrine'. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament, while amending, cannot alter, abrogate, or destroy the Constitution's 'basic structure' or 'essential features'.
Limits on Amending Power
- Parliament's power under Article 368 is constituent, not legislative, but remains limited.
- The doctrine implies amending power does not include power to rewrite or abrogate the Constitution's fundamental identity.
- Any amendment expanding Parliament's power to destroy the basic structure would itself be unconstitutional.
Judicial Review and Basic Features
The Supreme Court, through judicial review, determines what constitutes the basic structure. Though not exhaustively defined, it includes elements such as:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and democratic form of government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers
- Judicial review
Conclusion
Therefore, Parliament cannot destroy the Basic Structure by expanding its amending power. The statement 'Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power' directly reflects this doctrine, safeguarding the Constitution's core values.
243 words · target ~250
This directive requires a clear exposition of the legal position regarding Parliament's amending power and its limits, specifically in relation to the Basic Structure doctrine, leading to a definitive answer to the 'whether' part.
Suggested structure
Introduction: Parliament's Amending Power under Article 368
Evolution of Amending Power and Early Judicial Interpretations
The Genesis of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case)
Parliament's Power vs. Basic Structure: The Core Argument
Judicial Review and the Upholding of Basic Structure
Conclusion: Reaffirming the Limited Nature of Amending Power
Key points
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, but this power is not absolute.
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), limits Parliament's amending power.
Parliament cannot use its amending power under Article 368 to alter, abrogate, or destroy the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, through judicial review, determines what constitutes the basic structure, which includes elements like supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secularism, federal character, separation of powers, and judicial review.
The statement 'Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power' is a direct reflection of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Therefore, Parliament cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by expanding its amending power, as such an expansion itself would be unconstitutional.
Common mistakes
Failing to mention key Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati, Golaknath, Shankari Prasad).
Not clearly stating that Parliament *cannot* destroy the basic structure.
Confusing constituent power (amending power) with ordinary legislative power.
Not explaining the rationale behind the Basic Structure Doctrine as a safeguard against constitutional subversion.
Difficulty: Medium — The question requires a nuanced understanding of constitutional law, specifically the evolution and implications of the Basic Structure Doctrine, involving knowledge of landmark Supreme Court judgments and their legal reasoning. It's not merely descriptive but analytical.