Amending the Unamendable: A Constitutional Conundrum

The Indian Constitution's rigidity and flexibility: a delicate balance that has been the subject of much debate and discussion since the dawn of our republic. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of Constitutional Law, it's hard not to be fascinated by the amendability of our Constitution. The makers of our Constitution, in their infinite wisdom, introduced a unique system of amendment that has been both celebrated and criticized in equal measure. The Indian Constitution is amendable, but to what extent? And what are the limits to this amendability? The amendability of the Constitution is governed by Article 368, which lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. However, this Article has been the subject of much controversy and litigation over the years. In Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that the amendment must not alter the basic structure of the Constitution. But what does this basic structure mean? Article 368 itself is silent on this issue, leaving us to infer and interpret the scope of this provision. The Supreme Court has, in various judgments, held that the basic structure of the Constitution includes certain fundamental features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary, and the secular character of the state. The 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced the concept of a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament for the amendment of certain provisions of the Constitution, is a case in point. This Amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1962), where the court held that the amendment was valid. However, the court also made it clear that the power to amend the Constitution must not be used to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which was introduced by the Janata government in 1976, is another example of the limits of amendability. This Amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), where the court held that the amendment was unconstitutional because it altered the basic structure of the Constitution. In conclusion, the amendability of the Indian Constitution is a complex and contentious issue that has been the subject of much debate and litigation over the years. While the Constitution can be amended, there are limits to this amendability that must be respected. These limits are not clearly defined, leaving us to rely on the interpretations of the Supreme Court. As we navigate the labyrinthine corridors of Constitutional Law, one thing is clear: students often get this topic wrong by treating Article 368 as a carte blanche for any amendment. The reality is that the power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited, and any amendment must be in accordance with the basic structure of the Constitution.