Protection against constitutional amendments

Necessity of Amending Provisions in the Constitution

The social, economic and political conditions of the people go on changing so the constitutional law of the country must also change in order towards it to the changing needs, changing life of the people. If no provisions were made for amendment of the constitution, the people would have recourse to extra constitutional method like revolution to change the constitution. The framers of the Indian constitution were anxious to have a document which could grow with a growing nation, adapt itself to the changing circumstances of a growing people. 

Power to amend Constitution:

The Constitution of India was apparently intended to entrench the more permanent values cherished by the society, particularly in its Part III. The founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for governance. Hence Parliament was vested with the power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution.

Image Credit: www.thebetterindia.com

Restriction on parliament power of Amending Provisions in the Constitution and Judicial Review: 

However, with the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the Constitution makers, the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that Parliament could not distort, damage or alter the essential features or the 'basic structure' of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. The enunciation of this doctrine can be said to be an attempt to preserve the spirit of the rule of law from the otherwise unlimited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Thus, Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter over and interpreter of all constitutional amendments. Since what constitutes 'basic structure' is not spelt out in the Constitution, the features that constitute the same cannot be laid down until another authoritative pronouncement is rendered by the apex court. However, it can be said that the sovereign, democratic and secular character of the polity, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights of citizens, etc. are some of the essential features of the Constitution.

The framers of the Indian constitution were also aware of that fact that if the constitution was so flexible it would be like playing cards of the ruling party so they adopted a middle course. It is neither too rigid to admit necessary amendments, nor flexible for undesirable changes.

According to constitution, parliament and state legislature in India have the power to make the laws within their respective jurisdiction. This power is not absolute in nature.

The constitution vests in judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all the laws. If a laws made by parliament or state legislature violates any provision of the constitution, the Supreme Court has power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. So the process of judicial scrutiny of legislative acts is called Judicial Review. Article 368 of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and encompass all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative enthusiasm of Parliament ever since independence. With the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers.

Thanks for reading till the end. Please follow and share this blog for mote law notes.