"Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power." In the 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

The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is a critical feature of Indian democracy, enabling adaptability to changing needs. However, the Basic Structure Doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), imposes a limitation on this power, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution remain inviolable. This doctrine safeguards the Constitution from arbitrary amendments that could undermine its fundamental ethos.

Key Dimensions of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution under Article 368

• Scope of Article 368:
  Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.

• Judicial Interpretation:
  The Supreme Court has clarified that while Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure. This ensures a balance between constitutional flexibility and structural integrity.

• Examples of Amendments:

  • Valid Amendments: The 73rd and 74th Amendments (Panchayati Raj and Urban Local Bodies) strengthened democracy without violating the Basic Structure.
  • Struck Down Amendments: The 39th Amendment (1975), which sought to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review, was invalidated as it violated the principle of free and fair elections.

Can Parliament Destroy the Basic Structure?

Arguments Supporting the Limitation on Parliament's Power

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
  The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot use Article 368 to amend provisions that form the Basic Structure of the Constitution, such as secularism, democracy, and judicial review.

• Minerva Mills Case (1980):
  The Court reaffirmed that limited amending power is itself part of the Basic Structure, ensuring that Parliament cannot convert its power into an absolute authority.

• Judicial Review as a Safeguard:
  The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that amendments do not violate its fundamental framework.

Challenges and Counterarguments

• Ambiguity in Defining Basic Structure:
  The lack of a precise definition of the Basic Structure leaves room for subjective judicial interpretation, potentially leading to conflicts between the legislature and judiciary.

• Parliament's Sovereignty:
  Critics argue that excessive judicial intervention undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, which represents the will of the people.

Way Forward

• Collaborative Approach:
  A harmonious relationship between the legislature and judiciary is essential to balance constitutional flexibility with the preservation of its core values.

• Codification of Basic Structure:
  While difficult, an attempt to codify the elements of the Basic Structure could reduce ambiguity and ensure clarity in constitutional amendments.

• Strengthening Judicial Review:
  The judiciary must exercise its review power judiciously, avoiding overreach while protecting the Constitution's fundamental ethos.

Conclusion

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 remains limited and accountable, preventing any attempt to destroy the Constitution's core principles. This doctrine upholds the vision of the framers of the Constitution, ensuring that India remains a sovereign, democratic, and secular republic. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar aptly stated, "The Constitution is not a mere lawyer's document; it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the spirit of age."