Constitutional Law 101: Myth-Busting the Myths of the Indian Constitution

As I delved into the vast expanse of Constitutional Law for my CLAT PG preparations, I encountered numerous myths and misconceptions that needed to be busted. It's not just about memorizing the provisions of the Indian Constitution; it's about understanding the nuances and complexities that underlie them. In this article, I'll tackle some of the most common myths and explore the realities of India's foundational document.

The Myth of the 'Unamendable' Clauses

One of the most enduring myths surrounding the Indian Constitution is that certain clauses are 'unamendable.' This notion stems from the fact that some provisions, like Article 363, are specifically exempt from the amendment process. However, this doesn't mean that these clauses are inviolable or beyond the reach of Parliament.

Take, for instance, the Supreme Court's judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited, but it also recognized that the Fundamental Rights (FRs) can be subject to reasonable restrictions. This means that while some clauses may be difficult to amend, they're not entirely unamendable.

The Myth of the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine

Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the notion that the 'Basic Structure' doctrine is a rigid, unyielding concept. The Supreme Court's judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) established that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be altered through amendments. However, this doesn't mean that the doctrine is inflexible or absolute.

In reality, the 'Basic Structure' doctrine is a dynamic concept that evolves with the changing needs of the Constitution. The Court has consistently refined its interpretation of this doctrine, and it's not a fixed or static concept. This is evident from the Court's judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), where it held that the doctrine is not a straitjacket, but a flexible and evolving concept.

The Myth of the 'Constitutional Morality'

Finally, let's tackle the myth of 'Constitutional Morality.' This concept, popularized by the Supreme Court's judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), suggests that the Constitution has an inherent moral dimension that must be respected and upheld. While this concept is not without its merits, it's often misinterpreted as a rigid or absolute standard.

However, as Justice Chandrachud observed in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Constitution is not a moral code, but a constitutional document that must be interpreted in light of its text, history, and context. This means that Constitutional Morality is not a fixed or static concept, but a dynamic and evolving concept that must be interpreted in light of the changing needs of the Constitution.