The indian constitution has been amended nany times between 1950 and 2006. examine the amendments which have led to controversy between judiciary and parliament.
Answers
Explanation:
As of January 2020, there have been 104[1] amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first enacted in 1950.[2]
There are three types of amendments to the Constitution of India of which second and third type of amendments are governed by Article 368.
The first type of amendments includes that can be passed by "simple majority" in each house of the Parliament of India.
The second type of amendments include that can be effected by the parliament by a prescribed "special majority" in each house; and
The third type of amendments includes those that require, in addition to such "special majority" in each house of the parliament, ratification by at least one half of the State Legislatures.
The third type amendments that are made to the constitution are amendments No. 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 54, 61, 62, 70, 73, 74, 75, 79, 84, 88, 95, 99, 101, 102, 103 and 104.
There have been several amendments to the Indian Constitution that have been controversial and have led to clashes between the judiciary and the parliament. Some of these amendments are:
(1.) 24th Amendment Act (1971): This amendment gave the Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution without being subjected to judicial scrutiny on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), held that the Parliament's amending power is not unlimited and that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered.
(2.) 42nd Amendment Act (1976): This amendment was introduced during the Emergency period and was criticized for giving excessive power to the Executive and violating fundamental rights. It curtailed the powers of the judiciary and gave the Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. It was challenged in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), and the Supreme Court struck down some of its provisions as unconstitutional.
(3.) 99th Amendment Act (2014): This amendment was introduced to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the existing system of appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, the Supreme Court, in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional and upheld the existing system of appointment of judges by the judiciary itself.
Overall, these amendments have been controversial because they have either curtailed the powers of the judiciary or violated fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has played an important role in upholding the basic structure of the Constitution and striking down such amendments as unconstitutional.
#SPJ3