Model Answer:
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, allowing additions, variations, or repeals per legal procedures. However, it has occasionally overstepped constitutional limits, notably in the 25th and 42nd Amendments, threatening the principle of Constitutionalism and federal structure.
The “basic features” principle was first articulated in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decisions in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, declaring that the Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution hold a “transcendental position” and are beyond Parliament’s reach. It ruled that any amendment that “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III is unconstitutional.
Kesavananda Bharati’s case is recognized as a historical landmark where the Supreme Court first acknowledged the basic structure concept. The validity of the 25th Amendment was challenged alongside the 24th and 29th Amendments, with the court, by majority, overruling the Golaknath judgment.
The inherent ambiguity of the doctrine and the ratio in Kesavananda Bharati led to various challenges both to and under the doctrine before the Supreme Court. The period following Kesavananda Bharati saw the doctrine evolve on a case-by-case basis, resulting in its gradual expansion.
In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitutional amendment that aimed to regularize Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election was struck down for violating the basic features of democracy, the rule of law, and equality.
From 1975 onward, the courts interpreted and expanded the doctrine to include judicial review of decisions made by the High Court and Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32, secularism, federalism, freedoms under Article 19, judicial independence, and, recently, judicial primacy in the judicial appointment process.
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Parliament, through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, attempted to circumvent Kesavananda Bharati by asserting unlimited Parliamentary power. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decisions in Kesavananda Bharati and Indira Gandhi’s case, the Parliament introduced the 42nd Amendment, adding the words "secular" and "socialist" to the preamble, and incorporated clauses 4 and 5 into Article 368 of the Constitution. This indirectly suggested that there is no limitation on Parliament’s power regarding amendments.
The Court struck down this amendment because the judicial review of Parliamentary enactments and the limitation of Parliamentary power to amend the Constitution are themselves integral to the basic structure of the Constitution. However, it was much later that the Supreme Court addressed whether an addition to the Ninth Schedule would render the listed statute immune from the requirement of not infringing on fundamental rights. In I. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that all laws must comply with fundamental rights, which form part of the basic structure.
Therefore, Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution is limited to ensure that the essence envisioned by the founding fathers of India remains preserved. It is important to emphasize that the doctrine of basic structure does not diminish Parliament's legislative competence; instead, it serves to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and reinforce its foundational spirit.
Now that you have gone through the model answer, try practicing and writing it in your own words and evaluate it instantly with SuperKalam here - Evaluate Mains Answer instantly
.png)
