Supreme Court And Constitutional Amendments: Challenge Or Harmony?

The Supreme Court of India has the power to review and interpret the Constitution and arbitrate on amendments made by Parliament. The Court has acted as a check on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution since India's independence, with the aim of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers. While Article 368 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend any provision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament cannot distort, damage, or alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The 'basic structure' doctrine was first recognised in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, and there has been ongoing conflict between the Supreme Court and Parliament over the amending power of the Constitution. Constitutional amendments have been challenged in the Supreme Court on several occasions, with the Court upholding the right of citizens to challenge amendments affecting states' powers.

Explore related products

Affirmative Action for Economically Weaker Sections and Upper-Castes in Indian Constitutional Law

$190 $54.99

The Rights of Indians and Tribes

$29.95 $30.99

CARIBBEAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Rethinking the West Indian Polity

$35

American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy

$33

In the Courts of the Conquerer: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided

$24.95 $24.95

Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples

$39.95 $40.95

Citizens can challenge constitutional amendments

Citizens of India can challenge constitutional amendments in the Supreme Court. When a citizen challenges a constitutional amendment as being procedurally infirm, the court is duty-bound to examine the merits of such a challenge.

In 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment on the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, declaring it ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1950. The case was initially filed by activist Rajendra N. Shah, who sought to quash the amendment, arguing that it did not take recourse to Article 368(2) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's power to review constitutional amendments stems from its role as the interpreter of the Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by Parliament. The Court has acted as a check on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution since India's independence, aiming to preserve the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers.

The Basic Structure doctrine, recognised in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, is a critical tool in this regard. It holds that Parliament cannot distort, damage, or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. While there is no unanimity on what constitutes the basic structure, the Supreme Court has used this doctrine to strike down Constitutional Amendments and uphold the validity of others.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that citizens can challenge Constitutional Amendments affecting States' power. In the 2021 case, the Court noted that 17 out of 28 States had enacted legislations incorporating provisions of the challenged amendment, implying their acceptance of the restrictions. However, the Court emphasised that the procedure laid down in Article 368(2) requires ratification by resolutions from one half of the States, which had not been achieved.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution

The Supreme Court of India has the power to interpret the Constitution and act as a check on Parliament's legislative powers. The Court recognised the 'basic structure' concept for the first time in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, where it asserted that Parliament could not alter the fundamental features of the Constitution under the guise of amending it. This concept is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The Court has since been the interpreter of the Constitution and arbiter of all amendments.

The Supreme Court has also developed various doctrines and rules to check the validity and legality of amendments, such as the Basic Structure doctrine, which holds that constitutional amendments and ordinary laws are subject to different limitations. The Court has used this doctrine to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, as seen in the Raj Narain case, which led to the National Emergency in 1975.

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Constitutional Amendments on several occasions. In the 1952 Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India case, the Court upheld Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, even if it affects the fundamental rights of citizens. Similarly, in 1955, in Sajjan Singh v. Rajasthan, the Court upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. In 1992, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule inserted by the 52nd Amendment in the Anti-Defection case.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that citizens have the right to challenge a Constitutional Amendment affecting States' power. In 2021, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment on the Constitution's 97th Amendment, which affected multi-state cooperative societies within the States and Union territories of India. The Court noted that it was their duty to examine such challenges on their merits as the Constitution is a national charter of governance.

In summary, the Supreme Court of India has the power to interpret the Constitution and act as a check on Parliament's legislative powers. The Court has developed doctrines such as the Basic Structure doctrine to guide its decisions on the validity of amendments. While the Court has upheld the validity of amendments in some cases, it has also recognised citizens' rights to challenge amendments affecting States' power.

The Supreme Court can nullify amendments

The Indian Constitution grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution through addition, variation, or repeal of any provision. However, the Supreme Court has acted as a check on Parliament's amending powers since independence. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution and arbitrated all amendments made by Parliament.

The Supreme Court recognised the concept of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution for the first time in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. The Court held that Parliament could not distort, damage, or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it. The Court has used the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down a Constitutional Amendment.

The Supreme Court has also clarified that citizens have the right to challenge a Constitutional Amendment affecting States' power. When a citizen of India challenges a Constitutional Amendment as being procedurally infirm, it is the duty of the Court to examine such a challenge on its merits. The Court has allowed persons who have unsuccessfully challenged amendments before other High Courts to intervene in cases.

The Supreme Court has also struck down provisions of Constitutional Amendments that were not ratified by the required number of State Legislatures. In addition, the Court has struck down provisions of Constitutional Amendments that violate fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Therefore, the Supreme Court can nullify amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution, affect States' power, are procedurally infirm, lack proper ratification, or violate fundamental rights.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise)

$117.28

Indian Treaties in the United States: An Encyclopedia and Documents Collection

$39.95 $103

Decolonizing the Foundations in American Indian Law: Revisiting the Foundation Trilogy

$7.99

American Indian Law in a Nutshell

$31.5

On the Drafting of Tribal Constitutions (Volume 1) (American Indian Law and Policy Series)

$16.79 $21.95

The Rights of Indians and Tribes

$9.99 $17.49

Amendments can be challenged in High Courts

In India, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and its decisions are binding across the country. The final power to interpret the constitution lies with the Supreme Court. However, this does not mean that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged in High Courts.

The powers to review legislation are vested in the Supreme Court of India and the state's higher courts. This means that both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the jurisdiction to question the validity of a constitutional amendment or a central law. The High Courts have the power of judicial review over legislative action, which is an integral and essential feature of the constitution.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 curtailed the judicial review power of High Courts and prevented them from considering the constitutional validity of central laws. However, the 43rd Amendment Act of 1978 restored the original position of the High Courts. Now, High Courts have the jurisdiction to declare any central law constitutionally invalid.

The Supreme Court has acted as a check on Parliament's legislative enthusiasm since independence, preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution's creators. While the Supreme Court recognised Parliament's power to amend any or all provisions of the Constitution, it also asserted that Parliament could not distort, damage, or alter the basic features of the Constitution under the pretext of amending it.

In summary, while the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation in India, High Courts do have the power to review and question the validity of constitutional amendments and central laws.

The Basic Structure doctrine

The Supreme Court has also upheld the validity of Constitutional Amendments, provided they do not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the majority verdict recognised Parliament's power to amend any provision while also preserving the basic structure. Similarly, in the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, stating that Parliament had the power to amend any or all provisions of the Constitution.

However, there have been dissenting opinions on the applicability of the Basic Structure doctrine. In the 1952 Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India case and the 1955 Sajjan Singh v. Rajasthan case, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including those affecting fundamental rights. Despite this, two dissenting judges in the Sajjan Singh case questioned whether fundamental rights could be compromised by amendments.

Frequently asked questions