UPSC Mains Answer: “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 ame

Difficulty Level: Hard

Sub-category: Indian Polity and Constitution (Post-Independence)

Introduction

The Constitution of India, under Article 368, grants Parliament the power to amend its provisions. However, this power is not absolute but subject to inherent limitations, particularly the doctrine of the Basic Structure. This doctrine, evolved through judicial interpretation, ensures that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework, thereby preserving its core identity and values.

Body

Historically, the scope of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was a contentious issue. In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot destroy or alter its Basic Structure. This includes features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, federalism, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review. The Court’s verdict established that the amending power is not plenary and cannot be used to abrogate the Constitution’s foundational principles. Subsequent judgments, such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), reaffirmed this limitation, emphasizing that Parliament cannot convert its limited amending power into an absolute one. The Basic Structure doctrine acts as a judicial check to prevent constitutional tyranny, ensuring that amendments do not erode the Constitution’s essence. Thus, while Article 368 empowers Parliament to adapt the Constitution to changing needs, it does not permit the destruction of its core values or structure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is inherently limited by the Basic Structure doctrine. This judicial safeguard ensures that the Constitution’s fundamental principles remain inviolable, preventing any attempt to expand the amending power into an absolute authority. The doctrine thus strikes a balance between flexibility and rigidity, preserving the Constitution’s sanctity while allowing necessary evolution.