Parliament’s Power to Amend the Indian Constitution with Special Reference to the Doctrine of Basic Structure
The Constitution of India is a unique document that establishes the framework of governance, the distribution of powers, and the protection of rights in the country. At the same time, it is not a static document. The framers intentionally designed it to be flexible enough to accommodate changes over time. This flexibility is ensured through the provision for amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution. However, through judicial interpretation, especially in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment, this power has been subjected to a vital limitation known as the Doctrine of Basic Structure. This doctrine ensures that while the Constitution can be amended, its core identity cannot be destroyed.
Constitutional Basis of Amendment: Article 368
Article 368 empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution by following a special procedure. The amendment procedure depends on the nature of the provision being amended:
- Simple Majority – For provisions that are not specifically protected (e.g., formation of new states).
- Special Majority – Requires:
- Majority of total membership of each House, and
- Two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
- Special Majority + Ratification by Half of State Legislatures – Required for amendments that affect:
- Federal structure,
- Distribution of powers, and
- Judicial powers of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
This structured mechanism reflects cooperative federalism and ensures that important constitutional principles are not changed casually.
Initial Judicial Position: Unlimited Power of Parliament
In the early years, the Supreme Court supported the view that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited, even over Fundamental Rights.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The Supreme Court held that the word “law” under Article 13 did not include constitutional amendments. Therefore, Parliament could amend fundamental rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The Court reaffirmed the same view and stated that amendments were part of Parliament’s sovereign function under Article 368.
Shift in Judicial Approach: Golaknath Case
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
A significant shift occurred. The Court held:
- Constitutional amendments are included within the meaning of “law” under Article 13.
- Therefore, Parliament could not amend or abridge Fundamental Rights.
This judgment restricted Parliament’s authority and treated Fundamental Rights as immutable. In response, the Government enacted the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971) to restore Parliament’s amending power over fundamental rights.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Turning Point
This case marks the birth of the Doctrine of Basic Structure.
The Supreme Court, by a 7–6 majority, held that:
- Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- However, Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Thus, the power to amend is wide but not absolute.
What Constitutes the Basic Structure?
The Supreme Court did not provide a definite list but recognized certain essential features, such as:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, Democratic, and Republican form of government
- Secularism
- Separation of powers
- Federal character of the State
- Judicial review
- Rule of Law
- Independence of the Judiciary
- Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The idea is that the identity of the Constitution must remain intact, even if specific provisions are changed.
Further Judicial Reinforcement
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment, stating that judicial review is part of the Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Court held that:
- Limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure.
- Parliament cannot convert limited power into unlimited power.
This ensures that neither the executive nor the legislature can override constitutional limits.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine and clarified that amendments after the Kesavananda judgment could be tested against the Basic Structure.
Significance of the Doctrine of Basic Structure
- Protects Constitutional Identity
Prevents the fundamental character of the Constitution from being destroyed. - Ensures Checks and Balances
Keeps Parliament from becoming supreme and prevents authoritarian tendencies. - Safeguards Fundamental Rights and Democracy
Protects citizens from being deprived of basic freedoms through amendments. - Strengthens Judicial Review
Ensures that courts remain guardians of the Constitution.
Criticism of the Doctrine
- Some argue that the doctrine is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
- It gives the judiciary wide interpretative power, raising concerns about judicial overreach.
- Critics argue that the doctrine reduces Parliament’s democratic mandate.
However, supporters argue that without this doctrine, a temporary majority could alter the Constitution in ways that could undermine democracy.
Mnemonic to Remember Key Points
Use the mnemonic: “KIMI BARS”
- K – Kesavananda Bharati (Basic Structure established)
- I – Identity of Constitution protected
- M – Minerva Mills (Limited amending power)
- I – Indira Gandhi Case (Judicial review protected)
- B – Basic Structure doctrine
- A – Article 368 (Amendment Power)
- R – Rule of Law and Judicial Independence included
- S – Supremacy of Constitution upheld
Sentence:
“Kesavananda Insisted: Maintain Identity. Basic Amendments Require Supremacy.”
About lawgnan
Understand how the Doctrine of Basic Structure shapes India’s constitutional framework. Learn how landmark judgments like Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, and Indira Nehru Gandhi cases safeguard the soul of the Constitution by limiting Parliament’s amending power under Article 368. Perfect for law students, UPSC aspirants, and judiciary exam preparation, this concept preserves democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial independence. Visit Lawgnan.in to access simplified notes, landmark case summaries, and detailed explanations of constitutional doctrines with mnemonics to make your legal learning effective, structured, and exam-ready today.
