Facts of the Case
A constitutional question arose regarding the nature, scope, and extent of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution of India under Article 368. Parliament asserted that its amending power was unlimited, enabling it to alter any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
On the other hand, it was contended that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is subject to inherent limitations, as certain fundamental features form the very foundation of the constitutional order. The issue required judicial determination using Hans Kelsen’s Grund Norm Theory, which explains the hierarchical validity of legal norms.
Issues in the Case
The following issues arise for consideration:
- Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is absolute or limited.
- Whether there exists a higher norm (Grund Norm) that controls constitutional amendments.
- Whether Parliament can amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
- How Grund Norm Theory applies within the Indian constitutional framework.
Legal Principles Covered Supporting the Proceedings and Judgements
(a) Grund Norm Theory
According to Hans Kelsen, every legal system derives its validity from a basic norm (Grund Norm). All laws, including constitutional amendments, must conform to this foundational norm to be valid.
In India, the Constitution itself functions as the Grund Norm, but certain core principles embedded within it act as higher normative limits.
(b) Article 368 – Amending Power of Parliament
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution but does not explicitly state that the power is unlimited.
(c) Doctrine of Basic Structure
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution except its basic structure.
(d) Application of Grund Norm Theory
The basic structure acts as the supreme norm within the constitutional hierarchy. Any amendment destroying it violates the Grund Norm and is therefore invalid.
(e) Supporting Case Laws
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
These cases affirm that constitutional amendments must respect foundational constitutional principles.
Possible Judgement (With Reason)
The court would hold that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited, not absolute. Applying Grund Norm Theory, the Constitution’s basic structure functions as the supreme normative foundation.
While Parliament may amend constitutional provisions under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure, as doing so would violate the Grund Norm. Therefore, amendments inconsistent with core constitutional principles such as supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review are invalid.
About lawgnan
Understanding constitutional amendment powers and jurisprudential theories like Grund Norm is vital for constitutional law and judiciary exams. At lawgana.in, we simplify complex doctrines such as Basic Structure, Article 368, and Kelsen’s theory into clear, exam-ready answers. Whether you are an LLB student or a judiciary aspirant, our structured content strengthens your analytical ability and conceptual clarity. Visit lawgana.in for reliable jurisprudence notes, case-law explanations, and problem-based legal answers designed for academic and professional success.
