Constitutional Law: A House Divided?

The Unsettled Question of Amendment Update in India

In the realm of Indian Constitutional Law, the concept of amendments has been a contentious issue since the inception of our Constitution. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which strengthened the President's power to amend the Constitution, remains a subject of debate among scholars and jurists. As a law student or junior advocate, understanding the nuances of amendment update is crucial to succeed in the CLAT PG / AILET PG exams.

The Constitution of India, under Article 368, empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution. However, Section 2 of the Amendment Act limits the power of judicial review, thereby curtailing the ability of the courts to scrutinize amendments. This raises questions regarding the balance between the power of the legislature and the role of the judiciary in ensuring the Constitution remains a "living document."

The Debate Rages On: Article 368 versus the Doctrine of Basic Structure

In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the doctrine of basic structure. This doctrine, enunciated in Chandrachud J's judgment, posits that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by an amendment. The doctrine has since become a cornerstone of Indian Constitutional Law, safeguarding the core values enshrined in our Constitution.

However, the question remains: Can the doctrine of basic structure be used to limit the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution? The answer lies in the interpretation of Article 368, which is still an open-ended issue in Indian Constitutional Law. In the Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) case, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of basic structure is a limitation on the amending power of the Parliament, but the extent of this limitation remains unclear.

The Unsettled Question of Amendment Update

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which sought to strengthen the President's power to amend the Constitution, has left many questions unanswered. The amendment, which inserted Section 2 in Article 368, limited the judicial review of amendments, raising concerns regarding the role of the judiciary in ensuring the Constitution remains a "living document." As a law student or junior advocate, it is essential to understand the implications of this amendment and its impact on the doctrine of basic structure.

The amendment update has far-reaching consequences for the Indian polity, and the question of its validity remains a contentious issue. The debate between the power of the legislature and the role of the judiciary in ensuring the Constitution remains a "living document" continues to rage on. As we navigate the complexities of Indian Constitutional Law, it is essential to remain vigilant and critical in our understanding of the amendment update.

The Way Forward

As we move forward in our understanding of Indian Constitutional Law, it is essential to recognize that the amendment update remains an unsettled question.