UPSC Mains Answer: ‘The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.’ Discuss critically.

Difficulty Level: Hard

Pre-requisite: Understanding of the Indian Constitution's amending process (Article 368), the evolution of judicial review in India, and key Supreme Court judgments such as Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and Minerva Mills v. Union

Sub-category: Polity and Constitution (Indian Polity)

---

The Supreme Court of India plays a pivotal role in maintaining the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature, particularly in safeguarding the Constitution from arbitrary amendments by Parliament. This function is rooted in the doctrine of judicial review, enshrined in the Constitution, which empowers the Court to examine the validity of constitutional amendments under Article 368. The landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' asserting that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental features, such as federalism, secularism, and judicial independence. This doctrine acts as a bulwark against potential legislative overreach, ensuring that amendments do not undermine the Constitution's core values.
However, this judicial check is not without criticism. Critics argue that the Basic Structure Doctrine is subjective, as the Court alone determines what constitutes the 'basic structure,' potentially leading to judicial overreach. Additionally, the tension between the judiciary and Parliament has occasionally resulted in constitutional crises, such as during the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (2015), where the Court struck down a parliamentary amendment seeking to reform judicial appointments. While the Court's role is essential in preserving constitutional integrity, it must strike a delicate balance to avoid encroaching upon Parliament's legislative domain.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's oversight of constitutional amendments is a necessary mechanism to prevent arbitrary power, but it must be exercised with restraint and clarity to uphold democratic principles and the separation of powers.