The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Discuss critically.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, as the guardian of the Constitution, ensures that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not exercised arbitrarily. This is achieved through the doctrine of basic structure, which was established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). While this doctrine safeguards constitutional values, it has also sparked debates over judicial overreach and the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.

Key Dimensions of Judicial Oversight on Constitutional Amendments

Role of the Supreme Court in Checking Arbitrary Amendments

• Doctrine of Basic Structure:

  • The Kesavananda Bharati case limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by holding that amendments cannot alter its basic structure (e.g., democracy, secularism, federalism).
  • ★ This doctrine ensures that the core values of the Constitution remain intact, preventing arbitrary or politically motivated changes.

• Judicial Review of Amendments:

  • The Supreme Court has the authority to review constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the basic structure.
  • For instance, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment for violating the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights:

  • The judiciary ensures that amendments do not infringe upon Fundamental Rights, as seen in the IR Coelho case (2007), where laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were subjected to judicial review if they violated the basic structure.

• Safeguarding Federalism:

  • In cases like SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court reinforced the federal structure by limiting arbitrary actions that could undermine state autonomy.

Criticism of Judicial Oversight

• Judicial Overreach:

  • Critics argue that the basic structure doctrine lacks a clear definition, giving the judiciary excessive discretion to interpret what constitutes the basic structure.
  • This has led to accusations of judicial supremacy, undermining the principle of separation of powers.

• Conflict with Parliamentary Sovereignty:

  • The doctrine is seen as a limitation on the sovereign will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.
  • For instance, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (2015) was criticized for invalidating a constitutional amendment that had near-unanimous parliamentary support.

• Ambiguity in Application:

  • The lack of a definitive list of basic structure elements creates uncertainty, leading to inconsistent judicial decisions.

Way Forward

• Collaborative Constitutionalism:

  • The judiciary and Parliament must work in harmony to uphold constitutional values while respecting each other’s domains.
  • Establishing a constitutional dialogue mechanism could help resolve conflicts over amendments.

• Defining Basic Structure:

  • A clearer framework for identifying the elements of the basic structure could reduce ambiguity and ensure consistency in judicial decisions.

• Balancing Powers:

  • The judiciary should exercise restraint to avoid perceptions of overreach, while Parliament must ensure that amendments align with constitutional morality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s role in checking arbitrary amendments is vital to preserving the sanctity of the Constitution and protecting its core values. However, a balance must be struck to ensure that judicial review does not encroach upon the democratic mandate of Parliament. A harmonious relationship between the two institutions is essential to uphold the spirit of constitutionalism and the rule of law.