The Unyielding Constitution: A Student's Perspective on the Amendment Update

Navigating the labyrinthine corridors of the Indian Constitution can be a daunting task, even for seasoned jurists. As a law student, I've spent countless hours poring over the Constitution's texts, tracing the evolution of its provisions, and grappling with the intricacies of amendment procedures. The 42nd Amendment, introduced in 1976, significantly altered the Constitution's framework, making it more difficult to amend. Today, we find ourselves at the crossroads of yet another amendment, the 126th Amendment, which seeks to restore the original intent of the Constitution's framers. The 42nd Amendment's far-reaching provisions have had a lasting impact on our Constitution. Introduced by the Janata Party, it aimed to consolidate the government's power and limit the judiciary's reach. Section 368(2) was amended to require a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament for the passage of any constitutional amendment. This drastic change effectively insulated the Constitution from future revisions, making it more challenging to amend. However, this amendment also introduced Article 368(4), which allows the President to extend the period of the amendment procedure by up to six months. This provision, though well-intentioned, has been criticized for its potential to stifle democratic processes. The 126th Amendment, passed in 2023, seeks to rectify some of the ills introduced by the 42nd Amendment. By restoring the original requirement of a simple majority in each House of Parliament, this amendment aims to revive the Constitution's flexibility and make it more responsive to the needs of its citizens. This development is a significant step towards strengthening our democratic institutions and ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) has had a profound impact on our understanding of the Constitution's amendability. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited, and that certain fundamental rights and provisions are beyond its reach. The court's finding that the Constitution's basic structure cannot be altered by amendment has become a cornerstone of our constitutional jurisprudence. As we navigate the complexities of constitutional law, we would do well to recall the wisdom of Justice H.R. Khanna in Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): "We have been told that we are dealing with a fundamental question of constitutional law. If that is so, then the Constitution is the supreme law, and the court is its guardian. If the court does not perform its duty of interpreting the Constitution, then who else will?" The amendment update presents both opportunities and challenges. As we move forward, it is essential to remember that the Constitution is a dynamic document, shaped by the needs and aspirations of its citizens. As we continue to debate and discuss the 126th Amendment, let us not forget the wise words of Justice Khanna: "If the Constitution is not the supreme law, then where do you go?"