Article 21: Judicial Review vs Parliamentary Sovereignty
constitutional ailet advanced mcq_debateI'm having a beef with Rohan over this one. AILET 2020 Q. 34: Whether the Parliament can amend Article 21 by enacting a law that permits euthanasia under certain circumstances.
Rohan says: 'Chalo, the parliament can easily amend Article 21 and make euthanasia legal. It's their powers under Article 245. They can do whatever they want.'
I say: 'Wait, no way. We have the concept of basic structure here. Even if the parliament passes a law, the SC can strike it down if it goes against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. We can't let the parliament destroy the core of our Constitution.'
Rohan, I'd love to hear your rebuttal, but I think we need some outside perspectives on this one.
2 Comments
Bhai, I strongly disagree. Article 21 is not a direct challenge to parliamentary sovereignty. It's about a fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Judicial review is an aid to ensure constitutional supremacy, not a threat to sovereignty. We must understand the difference between sovereignty and absolute authority. Our Constitution allows for limits on legislative power to protect individual rights. So, let's not confuse these concepts, yaar. It's not an either-or situation.
Aapke point par aapkuch sahi hain, lekin iska ek aur side hi hai. Judicial review Article 21 ke baavjood bhi Parliament ko kuchh limit rakhti hai. Yeh limit wali power Supreme Court ne 1973 mein Kesavananda Bhartitilal vs State of Kerala ka faisla karte hue banayi thi. Abhi bhi yeh samasya hai ki kya Supreme Court ke judicial review par Parliament ki kabhi kabhi sovereignty ho sakhti hai ya nahin.