The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the…

Question

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

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court checks Parliament's amending power through the basic structure doctrine, striking down only amendments that attack the Constitution's core, while critics fault the doctrine's vagueness. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) set the test, later applied in Minerva Mills (1980) and the NJAC case (2015).

**Introduction**

Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, but since Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Supreme Court has held 7:6 that Parliament cannot destroy its basic structure.

**How the Court Checks the Amending Power**

SKETCH: timeline | Court vs Amending Power
- 1951 :: Shankari Prasad
- 1967 :: Golaknath
- 1973 :: Kesavananda Bharati
- 1980 :: Minerva Mills
- 2007 :: I.R. Coelho
- 2015 :: NJAC struck

1. **Shifting positions**: Shankari Prasad (1951) gave Parliament full power, Golaknath (1967) barred amending Fundamental Rights, and Kesavananda settled on the basic structure test, under which every Article may be amended but the Constitution's core identity may not.
2. **Striking excesses**: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck the 39th Amendment's shield for the Prime Minister's election, and Minerva Mills (1980) voided the 42nd Amendment's bar on judicial review.
3. **Extending the shield**: I.R. Coelho (2007) opened post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to review, and the NJAC case (2015) struck the 99th Amendment to protect judicial independence.

**A Critical Appraisal of the Check**

1. **Restraint shown**: The Court upheld the 103rd Amendment on EWS quotas in Janhit Abhiyan (2022), so the check is not a blanket veto.
2. **Vague content**: The basic structure has no exhaustive list, which lets unelected judges decide what elected representatives may change, a concern the Vice-President raised publicly in 2023.
3. **Self-interest charge**: In the NJAC verdict judges preserved their own role in appointments, which critics see as overreach.

**Conclusion**

The Court's check has acted as a safety valve rather than a veto, blocking only amendments that attacked elections, judicial review and independence. Keeping the doctrine narrow, reasoned and consistent will reconcile constitutional morality with parliamentary democracy and the people's right to change their Constitution.

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

Model answer

Practise this question

Separation of Powers between Various Organs4 questions

Ghissu