Hello!
UPSC Civil Service Examination Question !!
Toughest exam in India
Question :- The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the parliament in amending the constitution. Discuss Critically
Need Perfect Answer ! Let's see who answer in a perfect manner !
All the best !
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
The Supreme Court of India through judicial review and the Doctrine of basic features has evolved a system of keeping a check on the arbitrary power of Parliament to amend the constitution. The origin of intervention lay in the concern for preservation of the integrity of the Constitution from the arbitrary and undemocratic, amendments of Parliament.
Until the Supreme Court decision in Golak Nath case, there was no limitations on the power of Parliament to amend any part of Constitution. In the Golak Nath Case, however the position was reversed and Fundamental rights, were held as transcendental and immutable. Parliament thus couldn't amend the constitution even though a Constitutional Amendment Act passed under Article 368. In the Kesavnanda Bharati case, another change was made. Now the court said the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution as long as it did now alter the basic features of the Constitution.
However the definition of basic features has not been yet given and only specific features are given as basic features in different judgements. Judges believe that if parliament is allowed unlimited power to amend the constitution, there is a danger that the democratic government could be converted into a dictatorship and the secular state could be converted into theocratic state.
While the above concerns are genuine the fact is that the power to decide upon the type of Constitution lies with the people of India. The people exercise this power through their representatives in Parliament. The Supreme Court instead has taken this power upon itself by having the power to decide what a basic feature is.
The Constitution itself doesn't privilege any particular feature upon another. If the Constitution makers want to limit the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution they would have done so in the Constitution itself. The term basic feature has also never been explained. Moreover different judges hold a different opinion on what consist of a basic feature. The Supreme Court is not above the Constitution, it only has to power to interpret the constitution and not to amend or add new features to it. The limitations on the power of the parliament to amend the constitution while borne out of a genuine concern cannot thus, be said to be entirely in line with the democratic form of Government.