9 (A). "The powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution of India are limited" – Examine with examples
(1000 Words Answer for Group 1 Mains | English with Telugu Summary & Memory Tricks)
Introduction
The Indian Constitution is a dynamic and living document. Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to amend it. However, these powers are not absolute. The framers of the Constitution placed implicit and explicit limitations on this power to ensure that Parliament does not distort the basic philosophy and fundamental identity of the Constitution.
📌 Keyword: Constitutional Amendments under Article 368 are powerful but not unrestricted.
Constitutional Provision: Article 368
Article 368 of the Constitution of India provides two types of amendment procedures:
- By a special majority of Parliament (e.g., amendment of fundamental rights, directive principles, etc.)
- By a special majority of Parliament + ratification by half of the state legislatures (e.g., federal structure, powers of the President, etc.)
But what Article 368 doesn’t say explicitly is that some parts of the Constitution are immune from amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Evolution of Limitations on Parliament’s Power
Let’s examine how judicial interpretations have placed limitations on the amending power of Parliament:
🏛️ 1. Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
- Parliament's power upheld.
- Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights can be amended by the Parliament under Article 368.
🏛️ 2. Golaknath Case (1967)
- First major limitation imposed.
- Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights are beyond Parliament’s amendment power.
- Introduced the idea that amending power is not unlimited.
🏛️ 3. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
- Landmark judgment that established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but not the Basic Structure.
- What includes “basic structure”:
- Supremacy of Constitution
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
- Separation of powers
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Democracy
- Parliamentary form of government
- Free and fair elections
- Independence of judiciary
- Unity and integrity of India
- Basic Structure Doctrine = Limit on Amendment Power
✅ This judgment imposed a permanent limitation on Parliament’s powers. No constitutional amendment can alter the “basic features.”
🏛️ 4. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Case (1975)
- Struck down clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act.
- Held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
- Again reaffirmed that Parliament’s powers are subject to judicial review.
🏛️ 5. Minerva Mills Case (1980)
- Declared parts of 42nd Amendment unconstitutional.
- Balanced Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Reinforced that Parliament cannot override or destroy the basic structure.
🏛️ 6. Recent Cases
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):
- Even laws under Schedule IX (meant to be immune from judicial review) can be struck down if they violate the basic structure.
Examples Where Parliament's Powers Were Limited
| Amendment | Provision | Reason for Invalidity |
|---|---|---|
| 39th Amendment (1975) | Immunity to PM’s election | Violated Free & Fair Election (Basic Structure) |
| 42nd Amendment (1976) | Gave unlimited power to Parliament | Violated Judicial Review & Limited Government |
| 9th Schedule Laws (Post-1973) | Exempted laws from judicial review | Declared void if violate basic structure |
Judicial Review: The Final Guardian
Even after an amendment is passed, Supreme Court can strike it down if it violates the basic structure.
⚖️ Judiciary acts as the watchdog of the Constitution.
Why Should Parliament's Powers be Limited?
-
Preserve Democratic Values
– Absolute power leads to tyranny. -
Maintain Rule of Law
– The Constitution is supreme, not Parliament. -
Protect Fundamental Rights
– Prevent dilution of core rights. -
Maintain Federalism
– States' interests must be respected.
Counterview: Parliament is Elected, So Why Limit?
- Some argue that since Parliament is elected by the people, it should have unrestricted powers.
- But checks and balances are essential in a democracy.
- Power must be used within constitutional boundaries.
Conclusion
While Parliament has vast powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, these powers are not unlimited. The Supreme Court, through the Basic Structure Doctrine, has established inviolable constitutional principles. This judicial innovation ensures that democracy, rights, and justice remain intact, and India does not drift into authoritarianism.
✅ Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot destroy its soul.
📌 Summary in Telugu:
భారత రాజ్యాంగ సవరణ అధికారాలు పరిమితమైనవే.
Article 368 ప్రకారం పార్లమెంటుకు రాజ్యాంగాన్ని సవరణ చేసే అధికారం ఉన్నా, Supreme Court కొన్ని నిర్ణయాల ద్వారా పరిమితులు విధించింది:
- Golaknath Case (1967): మౌలిక హక్కులను సవరణ చేయలేమని తీర్పు.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): "Basic Structure Doctrine" ప్రవేశపెట్టారు. మౌలిక నిర్మాణాన్ని మార్చలేరు.
- Minerva Mills, IR Coelho: 42వ సవరణలోని అధిక అధికారాలను నిలిపేశారు.
Basic Structure అంటే:
- ప్రజాస్వామ్యం, న్యాయ సమీక్ష, మౌలిక హక్కులు, అధికార విభజన, లౌకికత, సమాఖ్య వ్యవస్థ మొదలైనవి.
👉 అందువల్ల, పార్లమెంటు అధికారం రాజ్యాంగ రక్షణలోనే ఉంది.
💡 Thinking Process (Study Trick in Telugu + English)
🧠 TRICK: "GK-KIM" – Key Cases that Limit Parliament
- G – Golaknath (No FR Amendment)
- K – Kesavananda (Basic Structure)
- K – Kihoto Hollohan (Speaker = Judicial Review allowed)
- I – Indira Gandhi (Free election = basic structure)
- M – Minerva Mills (Balance between DPSP & FR)
🎯 Visual Memory: Parliament trying to “cut” the Constitution – Supreme Court holds a shield marked “Basic Structure”
Deep
## The Limited Power of Parliament to Amend the Indian Constitution: An Analysis
The statement "The powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution of India is limited" is fundamentally correct and represents one of the most significant features of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. While Parliament possesses the authority to amend the Constitution under **Article 368**, this power is not absolute. It is constrained by the **"Basic Structure Doctrine"** established by the Supreme Court. This doctrine acts as an unamendable core, protecting the Constitution's foundational principles from arbitrary alteration.
**The Source of Amendment Power: Article 368**
* Article 368 provides the procedure for amending the Constitution. Amendments typically require:
* A special majority: A majority of the *total membership* of each House of Parliament and a majority of not less than **two-thirds** of the members of that House *present and voting*.
* In some cases (federal features), ratification by the legislatures of **not less than one-half of the States**.
**The Emergence of the Limitation: The Basic Structure Doctrine**
The idea that Parliament's amending power might have limits was fiercely debated and ultimately settled by the Supreme Court through a series of landmark judgments:
1. **Shankari Prasad Singh (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965):** The Court initially held that **Fundamental Rights (Part III)** could be amended under Article 368, and the term "law" in Article 13 (which voids laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights) did not include constitutional amendments.
2. **Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967):** In a radical shift, the Court ruled that **Fundamental Rights could not be abridged or taken away** by constitutional amendments. Parliament responded by enacting the **24th Amendment Act (1971)**, explicitly asserting its power to amend *any* part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and clarifying that such amendments were not "law" under Article 13.
3. **The Landmark: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973):**
* This case is the cornerstone of the Basic Structure Doctrine. A massive 13-judge bench reconsidered Golaknath and the scope of Article 368.
* **The Judgment:** The Court overruled Golaknath, upholding the validity of the 24th Amendment. Crucially, however, it declared that **Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not extend to altering the "Basic Structure or Framework" of the Constitution.**
* **The Doctrine:** While Parliament can amend any provision, it cannot destroy or abrogate the Constitution's essential features – its identity and fundamental objectives. What constitutes the "Basic Structure" is not exhaustively defined but is determined by the Court on a case-by-case basis.
4. **Reinforcement: Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975):** During the Emergency, the 39th Amendment Act sought to immunize the Prime Minister's election from judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the amendment, explicitly including **"Free and Fair Elections"** and the **"Rule of Law"** within the Basic Structure.
5. **Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980):** This case solidified the doctrine. The Court invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which had attempted to:
* Exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments (Article 368(4) & (5)).
* Give Directive Principles (Part IV) absolute primacy over Fundamental Rights (Part III).
* **Key Holdings:**
* **Judicial Review** itself is part of the Basic Structure.
* The **harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV)** is part of the Basic Structure. Neither can be entirely subordinated to the other.
* **Limited amending power** is itself a basic feature.
**Examples Illustrating the Limitation (Basic Structure Violations):**
1. **Attempting to Abolish Judicial Review:** The 42nd Amendment's clauses excluding constitutional amendments from judicial review (Kesavananda review) were struck down in **Minerva Mills (1980)** because **Judicial Review** is fundamental to upholding the Constitution and the Basic Structure.
2. **Violating Federalism:** In **S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)**, the Court emphasized that **Federalism** is part of the Basic Structure. While not striking down an amendment *per se*, the judgment heavily implied that amendments destroying the federal character (e.g., abolishing states or their essential powers without consent) would be invalid. Amendments altering federal provisions require state ratification (Article 368 proviso), reflecting this inherent limit.
3. **Removing Free & Fair Elections:** The attempt to immunize the PM's election from scrutiny via the 39th Amendment was struck down in **Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)** for violating **Democracy** and **Free and Fair Elections**, core elements of the Basic Structure.
4. **Destroying Secularism:** While no amendment explicitly destroying secularism has been passed and challenged, **Secularism** is firmly established as part of the Basic Structure (S.R. Bommai). Any amendment attempting to abolish it or establish a theocracy would likely be invalidated.
5. **Compromising Independence of Judiciary:** Amendments attempting to undermine the appointment process, security of tenure, or financial independence of judges would violate the **Independence of the Judiciary**, a core Basic Structure feature (e.g., *Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India - 1993*, NJAC Case - 2015 reaffirmed this).
6. **Removing All Fundamental Rights:** While individual rights can be amended (subject to reasonableness tests post-Kesavananda), an amendment abolishing *all* Fundamental Rights would likely be struck down for destroying the **"Dignity of the Individual"** and the **"Republican and Democratic form of government"**, key aspects of the Basic Structure.
**The Nature of the Limitation:**
* **Judicially Defined:** The Basic Structure is not codified; its contours are defined and expanded by the Supreme Court through interpretation.
* **Dynamic:** The list of basic features evolves. Examples include: Supremacy of the Constitution, Sovereign, Democratic and Republican nature, Secularism, Federalism, Separation of Powers, Unity and Integrity of the Nation, Rule of Law, Principle of Equality, Free and Fair Elections, Independence of Judiciary, Judicial Review, Effective Access to Justice, Principles (Harmony) underlying Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
* **Ultimate Guardian:** The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate arbiter, reviewing constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the Basic Structure.
**Conclusion:**
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is indeed **limited**. The revolutionary **Basic Structure Doctrine**, born out of judicial wisdom in **Kesavananda Bharati (1973)** and solidified in cases like **Indira Gandhi (1975)** and **Minerva Mills (1980)**, established that while the text can be changed, the Constitution's foundational identity and core principles are inviolable. Examples like the striking down of parts of the 39th and 42nd Amendments demonstrate this limitation in action, protecting pillars like judicial review, democracy, federalism, secularism, and the balance between rights and directives. This doctrine ensures the Constitution remains a living document capable of adaptation while safeguarding its fundamental character against transient parliamentary majorities, making it the bedrock of Indian constitutional democracy.
---
**తెలుగులో సారాంశం (Summary in Telugu):**
**పార్లమెంట్ భారత రాజ్యాంగాన్ని సవరించే అధికారం పరిమితమైనదేనా?**
అవును. ఆర్టికల్ 368 కింద పార్లమెంట్కు రాజ్యాంగాన్ని సవరించే అధికారం ఉన్నప్పటికీ, ఈ అధికారం **అపరిమితమైనది కాదు**. దీనికి ప్రధాన పరిమితి **"ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణ సిద్ధాంతం" (Basic Structure Doctrine)**.
* **ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణ సిద్ధాంతం ఏమిటి?** రాజ్యాంగం యొక్క మౌలిక స్వభావం, దాని గుర్తింపు మరియు ప్రాథమిక లక్ష్యాలను ఏ సవరణ కూడా నాశనం చేయకూడదు. ఈ "ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణం" సవరించలేనిది. దీన్ని సుప్రీంకోర్టు **కేశవానంద భారతి కేసు (1973)**లో స్థాపించి, **ఇందిరా గాంధీ కేసు (1975)** మరియు **మినర్వా మిల్స్ కేసు (1980)**లో బలపరిచింది.
* **ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణంలో ఏమి ఉంటుంది?** (ఉదాహరణలు):
* రాజ్యాంగానికి ఆధిపత్యం
* సార్వభౌమ, ప్రజాస్వామ్య, గణతంత్ర రాజ్య స్వభావం
* **మతనిరపేక్షత (Secularism)**
* **సమాఖ్యత (Federalism)**
* **శాసన, కార్యాచరణ, న్యాయాధిపత్యాల విభజన (Separation of Powers)**
* **న్యాయ సమీక్ష (Judicial Review)**
* **న్యాయపాలన స్వాతంత్ర్యం (Independence of Judiciary)**
* **ప్రాథమిక హక్కులు (Fundamental Rights)** మరియు **రాజ్యాంగ నిర్దేశక తత్వాల (Directive Principles)** మధ్య సామరస్యం/సమతుల్యత
* **స్వేచ్ఛాయుత మరియు నిష్పాక్షిక ఎన్నికలు (Free & Fair Elections)**
* **న్యాయం పొందే ప్రభావవంతమైన అవకాశం (Effective Access to Justice)**
* **చట్టపరమైన పాలన (Rule of Law)**
* దేశ ఐక్యత, సమగ్రత.
**ఉదాహరణలు ద్వారా పరిమితుల వివరణ:**
1. **39వ సవరణ (1975):** ప్రధానమంత్రి ఎన్నికపై న్యాయసమీక్షను నిషేధించడానికి ప్రయత్నించింది. సుప్రీంకోర్టు దీనిని రద్దు చేసింది, ఎందుకంటే ఇది **ప్రజాస్వామ్యం**, **స్వేచ్ఛాయుత మరియు నిష్పాక్షిక ఎన్నికలు** అనే ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణాన్ని ఉల్లంఘించింది.
2. **42వ సవరణ (1976):** (i) రాజ్యాంగ సవరణలపై **న్యాయ సమీక్షను** మినహాయించడానికి మరియు (ii) **రాజ్యాంగ నిర్దేశక తత్వాలకు** **ప్రాథమిక హక్కులపై** పూర్తి ప్రాధాన్యతనివ్వడానికి ప్రయత్నించింది. సుప్రీంకోర్టు (మినర్వా మిల్స్ కేసులో) ఈ భాగాలను రద్దు చేసింది, ఎందుకంటే అవి **న్యాయ సమీక్ష**, **న్యాయపాలన స్వాతంత్ర్యం** మరియు **ప్రాథమిక హక్కులు-నిర్దేశక తత్వాల మధ్య సమతుల్యత** అనే ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణాలను ధ్వంసం చేశాయి.
3. **సమాఖ్యత:** సుప్రీంకోర్టు **ఎస్.ఆర్. బొమ్మాయ్ కేసు (1994)**లో **సమాఖ్యత** ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణంలో భాగమని నొక్కి చెప్పింది. రాష్ట్రాల సమ్మతి లేకుండా వాటి మౌలిక అధికారాలను నాశనం చేసే ఏ సవరణైనా చెల్లదు. ఇది సవరణ శక్తికి అంతర్నిహితమైన పరిమితి.
**ముగింపు:** పార్లమెంట్ రాజ్యాంగాన్ని మార్చగలదు, కానీ దాని **ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణాన్ని** (దాని గుండె, ఆత్మ) ధ్వంసం చేయలేదు. సుప్రీంకోర్టు ఈ ప్రాథమిక నిర్మాణ సిద్ధాంతం ద్వారా రాజ్యాంగం యొక్క మౌలిక స్వభావాన్ని రక్షిస్తుంది. ఇది భారతదేశాన్ని ఒక 'నియంతృత్వ పాలన (Parliamentary Sovereignty)' కాకుండా 'రాజ్యాంగ పాలన (Constitutional Sovereignty)' గా నిలబెట్టడంలో కీలకమైన పాత్ర పోషిస్తుంది.
---
**Thinking Process & Tricks to Remember (Telugu & English):**
**Thinking Process (ఆలోచన ప్రక్రియ / ఆంగ్లంలో):**
1. **Question Breakdown:** "Limited powers" - means not absolute. Need to prove this limitation exists. Focus on **Article 368** (power) vs. **Basic Structure Doctrine** (limitation).
2. **Historical Context:** Remember the journey - Initial broad power (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh) -> Fundamental Rights protected (Golaknath) -> Parliament's counter (24th Amendment) -> The Grand Settlement (Kesavananda Bharati - Basic Structure Doctrine) -> Refinements and Confirmations (Indira Gandhi, Minerva Mills, later cases).
3. **Core Limitation:** The Basic Structure Doctrine is the key. What is it? (Unamendable core principles). Who defines it? (Supreme Court). Why was it needed? (To prevent destruction of Constitution's identity by transient majorities).
4. **Proving Limitation - Examples:** Need concrete instances where amendments were struck down *because* they violated the Basic Structure. Recall the most famous ones: 39th Amendment (Elections), 42nd Amendment parts (Judicial Review, FR-DPP balance). Also, think of principles protected (Federalism in Bommai, Secularism).
5. **Nature of Limitation:** It's judicial, dynamic, and the Supreme Court is the guardian.
6. **Structure Answer:** Start with Article 368 power -> Introduce the conflict/evolution -> Landmark Kesavananda case and Doctrine -> Explain key components of Basic Structure -> Illustrate with examples of struck-down amendments -> Conclude on the nature of the limitation.
**Tricks to Remember (గుర్తుంచుకోవడానికి ట్రిక్స్ / తెలుగు & English):**
1. **The Landmark Case: KESAVANANDA (కేశవానంద)**
* **Trick:** **K**ey **E**vent **S**ecured **A**gainst **V**anishing **A**ncient **N**oble **A**nd **N**ecessary **D**octrine **A**dopted. (Or simply remember **KESA**vananda - **K**esavananda **E**stablished **S**tructure **A**uthority).
* **తెలుగు:** **కే**శవానంద **సా**ధించాడు **ప్రా**థమిక **ని**ర్మాణ **సి**ద్ధాంతం. (**కే**శవానంద = **కే** **సా** **ప్రా** **ని** **సి**).
2. **Basic Structure Components (Remember the Acronym "BASIC STRUCTURE"):**
* **B** - Basic Features (Fundamental Rights, Dignity)
* **A** - Authority (Supremacy of Constitution)
* **S** - Structure (Federalism, Separation of Powers)
* **I** - Independence (Judiciary)
* **C** - Core Values (Secularism, Democracy, Republic, Sovereignty)
* **S** - Scrutiny (Judicial Review)
* **T** - Test (Rule of Law)
* **R** - Rights-DPP Balance
* **U** - Unity & Integrity
* **C** - Citizen Access (Effective Access to Justice)
* **T** - Transparent Elections (Free & Fair)
* **U** - Unalterable Core (The Doctrine itself!)
* **R** - Republican Form
* **E** - Equality Principle
* **తెలుగు:** **ప్రాధానిక** (**ప్రా**థమిక నిర్మాణ) లక్షణాలు:
* **ప్ర**జాస్వామ్యం, గణతంత్రం
* **ధా**ర్మిక స్వేచ్ఛ (మతనిరపేక్షత)
* **ఇ**క్ష్వాకు వంశం కాదు! (సమాఖ్యత - కేంద్రం, రాష్ట్రాలు)
* **ని**ష్పాక్షిక ఎన్నికలు
* **య**ుక్తాయుక్త విచక్షణ (న్యాయ సమీక్ష)
* **క**ర్మనిర్వహణ విభజన (శాసన, కార్యాచరణ, న్యాయం)
* **ప్ర**ాథమిక హక్కులు + నిర్దేశక తత్వాల సమతుల్యత.
3. **Key Cases Visual:**
* **Kesavananda (1973):** Imagine a **HAMMER** (Parliament's power) hitting a **SHIELD** marked "BASIC STRUCTURE". The shield holds. *(Foundational Case)*
* **Indira Gandhi (1975):** Imagine an **ELECTION SYMBOL** (e.g., Hand) being protected by the shield. *(Protected Free Elections)*
* **Minerva Mills (1980):** Imagine **SCALES** (Balance) between **FR** and **DPSP**, and a **GAVEL** (Judiciary) guarding them. *(Protected FR-DPP Balance & Judicial Review)*
* **Bommai (1994):** Imagine a **MAP of INDIA** with **STATE BOUNDARIES** being protected by the shield. *(Reinforced Federalism)*
4. **Amendment Numbers Trick:**
* **39th Amendment:** Think "**3**9" -> **Election** happens around age ~**30**s/40s? (Protected Free Elections).
* **42nd Amendment:** Think "**4**2" -> "**FOR**ty **T**WO" -> **FOR**ced **T**otal **W**in (Parliament tried to win totally by removing JR and giving DPP primacy) -> **FAILED** (Struck down in Minerva Mills).
5. **Core Concept:** Remember the **"Unamendable CORE"**.
* Parliament can amend the **OUTER LAYERS** (Procedures, Specific Rights with limits, Details of schemes).
* It CANNOT touch the **INNER CORE** (Basic Structure - Democracy, Secularism, FR essence, JR, etc.). Picture an apple - Parliament can peel the skin or cut slices (amend), but cannot destroy the core seeds (Basic Structure).
By combining these tricks (acronyms, visuals, case associations, and the core concept of an unamendable core), you can effectively recall the doctrine, its origin, its components, and the key examples proving Parliament's limited amending power.
No comments:
Post a Comment