Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under:
Article 368
However, Constitutional Amendments are not completely beyond the scrutiny of courts.
The Supreme Court can examine whether a Constitutional Amendment violates:
The Basic Structure of the Constitution
This power is an important part of:
Judicial Review
Parliament → Can Amend
Judiciary → Can Review
Basic Structure → Cannot Be Destroyed
Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine whether:
are consistent with the Constitution.
In the case of Constitutional Amendments, the Supreme Court examines whether Parliament has exceeded the limits of its amending power.
Judicial Review → Constitutional Validity Check
Judicial review of Constitutional Amendments is connected with:
Article 13
and:
Article 368
as well as the broader principle of:
Constitutional Supremacy
The Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions through various landmark judgments.
Initially, the Supreme Court generally accepted a broad interpretation of Parliament's amending power.
The important cases were:
Shankari Prasad, 1951
and:
Sajjan Singh, 1965
The Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court held that:
Constitutional Amendments were not "law" under Article 13.
Therefore, Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court initially placed limited restrictions on Parliament's amending power.
Shankari Prasad → Amendment Power Upheld
The Supreme Court again upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court continued to recognise:
Broad Parliamentary Amending Power
Sajjan Singh → Amendment Power Upheld
The Supreme Court changed its position.
It held that:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court treated Constitutional Amendments as "law" for the purpose of Article 13.
This judgment significantly restricted Parliament's amending power.
Golaknath → Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Amended
This position was later changed by constitutional developments and the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
Parliament responded to the Golaknath judgment through the:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
Important changes included:
The amendment strengthened Parliament's amending power.
However:
Parliament's amending power remained subject to judicial interpretation.
This is the most important judgment concerning judicial review of Constitutional Amendments.
A 13-judge Constitution Bench considered the scope of Parliament's amending power.
The Supreme Court held:
Parliament can amend the Constitution.
But:
Parliament cannot destroy its Basic Structure.
This established the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
The judgment created a substantive limitation on Parliament's amending power.
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure → Judicial Review
The Supreme Court can examine whether a Constitutional Amendment:
The Court does not ordinarily invalidate an amendment merely because it disagrees with its:
Policy
or:
Political wisdom
The central constitutional question is:
Does the amendment violate the Basic Structure?
The Basic Structure Doctrine provides the principal substantive test for reviewing Constitutional Amendments.
The Court asks whether the amendment:
Changes the Constitution
or:
Destroys its Basic Structure
Constitutional Change → Permitted
Constitutional Destruction → Not Permitted
Judicial review does not mean Parliament has a narrow amendment power.
Parliament can:
subject to the Basic Structure limitation.
Wide Power ≠ Unlimited Power
Fundamental Rights are:
Amendable
The Supreme Court can nevertheless examine whether an amendment affecting Fundamental Rights damages the Basic Structure.
Therefore:
Fundamental Rights → Amendable
but:
Basic Structure → Protected
The Preamble is:
Part of the Constitution
and can be amended.
However, the amendment cannot destroy the Basic Structure.
For example, the:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
added the words:
to the Preamble.
Preamble → Amendable
Basic Structure → Protected
Article 368 itself can be amended.
However, Parliament cannot use an amendment to Article 368 to:
Remove the Basic Structure limitation
or:
Completely eliminate judicial review
Such an amendment would itself be subject to judicial review.
Article 368 → Amendable
Unlimited Amending Power → Not Permitted
This case is extremely important for judicial review of Constitutional Amendments.
The Supreme Court struck down important parts of the:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
that attempted to expand Parliament's amending power and restrict judicial review.
The Court held that:
Limited Amending Power
and:
Judicial Review
are part of the Basic Structure.
Parliament cannot use Article 368 to:
Destroy the limitations on Article 368 itself.
Minerva Mills → Judicial Review + Limited Amending Power
The 42nd Amendment attempted to significantly expand Parliament's constitutional authority.
Among other changes, it inserted provisions intended to restrict courts from questioning Constitutional Amendments.
The Supreme Court later invalidated important parts of these provisions in:
Minerva Mills, 1980
This demonstrated that:
Judicial Review extends even to Constitutional Amendments.
The Supreme Court considered the Basic Structure Doctrine in relation to the:
Ninth Schedule
The Court reaffirmed the importance of the Basic Structure limitation.
It treated:
24 April 1973
as an important constitutional date.
This was the date of the:
Kesavananda Bharati judgment
Waman Rao → Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure
The Supreme Court further developed judicial review of laws placed in the:
Ninth Schedule
The Court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after:
24 April 1973
can be examined by courts if they damage or violate Basic Structure principles.
Ninth Schedule ≠ Absolute Immunity
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure Review
The Ninth Schedule was originally intended to protect certain laws from judicial challenge.
However, the Basic Structure Doctrine places a constitutional limitation on that protection.
Therefore:
Constitutional Protection ≠ Absolute Judicial Immunity
The Supreme Court can examine whether protected laws damage Basic Structure principles.
The:
Supreme Court of India
has the final judicial authority to determine whether a Constitutional Amendment violates the Basic Structure.
High Courts exercise judicial review generally, but challenges to the validity of Constitutional Amendments under the Basic Structure Doctrine are ultimately determined by the Supreme Court.
Basic Structure Challenge → Supreme Court
No.
Parliament cannot validly use a Constitutional Amendment to completely remove:
Judicial Review
because judicial review is itself recognised as part of the Basic Structure.
Parliament → Amendment Power
Supreme Court → Judicial Review
Basic Structure → Constitutional Limit
Judicial review of Constitutional Amendments reinforces:
Constitutional Supremacy
In India:
Constitution > Parliament
Parliament derives its constituent power from the Constitution.
Therefore, Parliament cannot use that power to destroy the Constitution's fundamental framework.
Parliament has unlimited law-making authority.
Parliament's powers are limited by the Constitution.
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
rather than absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
India → Constitutional Supremacy
These concepts should not be confused.
Power of courts to determine whether an action or law is constitutionally valid.
A broader approach where courts may interpret constitutional provisions actively to protect constitutional values.
For Constitutional Amendments, the key concept is:
Judicial Review
These concepts are related but different.
The:
Power
of courts to examine constitutional validity.
The:
Substantive limitation
used to determine whether a Constitutional Amendment exceeds Parliament's power.
Judicial Review → Mechanism
Basic Structure → Constitutional Limit
Yes.
If the Supreme Court finds that a Constitutional Amendment violates the Basic Structure, it can:
Declare the offending provision invalid.
The amendment may therefore be struck down to the extent of the constitutional violation.
The Court does not strike down amendments simply because:
The issue is:
Violation of the Constitution's Basic Structure
Important protected features include:
The list is:
Not Exhaustive
Federalism is part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore, the Supreme Court can examine whether a Constitutional Amendment fundamentally destroys the federal character of the Constitution.
This provides protection against:
Excessive Centralisation through Constitutional Amendment
Federalism → Basic Structure → Judicial Review
Secularism is also recognised as a Basic Structure feature.
Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment cannot validly destroy the secular character of the Constitution.
Secularism → Basic Structure → Judicial Review
The Constitution distributes power among:
Legislature + Executive + Judiciary
The Basic Structure Doctrine prevents a Constitutional Amendment from completely destroying this constitutional balance.
Therefore:
Separation of Powers → Basic Structure
The judiciary must remain sufficiently independent to perform:
Therefore:
Independence of Judiciary → Basic Structure
| Year | Case / Amendment | Judicial Review / Amendment Principle |
|---|---|---|
| 1951 | Shankari Prasad | Amendment power upheld |
| 1965 | Sajjan Singh | Amendment power upheld |
| 1967 | Golaknath | Fundamental Rights protected from amendment |
| 1971 | 24th Amendment | Parliament's constituent power strengthened |
| 1973 | Kesavananda Bharati | Basic Structure Doctrine established |
| 1976 | 42nd Amendment | Attempted to expand amendment power and restrict review |
| 1980 | Minerva Mills | Judicial review + limited amending power protected |
| 1981 | Waman Rao | Basic Structure applied to Ninth Schedule issues |
| 2007 | I.R. Coelho | Ninth Schedule subject to Basic Structure review |
1951
→ Amendment power upheld
1965
→ Amendment power upheld
1967
→ Fundamental Rights held unamendable
1973
→ Basic Structure Doctrine
1980
→ Judicial Review + Limited Amending Power
1981
→ Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure
2007
→ Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure Review
Constitutional Amendments are completely immune from judicial review.
False
They can be reviewed for violation of:
Basic Structure
The Supreme Court can invalidate any Constitutional Amendment simply because it disagrees with Parliament.
False
The amendment must violate a constitutional limitation, especially:
Basic Structure
Judicial review and Basic Structure Doctrine are the same thing.
False
Judicial Review → Power / Mechanism
Basic Structure → Substantive Limitation
Parliament can remove judicial review through a Constitutional Amendment.
False
Judicial review is part of the:
Basic Structure
Parliament can make its amending power unlimited.
False
Limited amending power is itself part of the:
Basic Structure
Fundamental Rights cannot be amended.
False
They can be amended, subject to:
Basic Structure
The Preamble cannot be amended.
False
The Preamble can be amended subject to the Basic Structure limitation.
The Basic Structure Doctrine was established in Golaknath.
False
It was established in:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Minerva Mills established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
False
Kesavananda Bharati established it.
Minerva Mills:
Reaffirmed and strengthened it.
Ninth Schedule laws are completely beyond judicial review.
False
Following:
I.R. Coelho, 2007
they can be reviewed for Basic Structure violations.
| Concept | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Article 368 | Constitutional amendment power and procedure |
| Judicial Review | Court's power to examine constitutional validity |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Substantive limitation on amendment power |
| Constitutional Supremacy | Constitution is supreme over Parliament |
| Parliamentary Amending Power | Wide but not unlimited |
| Supreme Court | Final judicial authority on Basic Structure challenges |
Article 368
→ Amendment Power
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
→ Basic Structure
Judicial Review
→ Court can review amendments
Minerva Mills, 1980
→ Judicial Review + Limited Amending Power
Waman Rao, 1981
→ Ninth Schedule + Basic Structure
I.R. Coelho, 2007
→ Ninth Schedule subject to Basic Structure review
Parliament can amend
Supreme Court can review
Basic Structure cannot be destroyed
Judicial review of Constitutional Amendments represents the balance between:
Parliamentary Amending Power
and:
Constitutional Supremacy
Parliament must have sufficient power to adapt the Constitution to changing circumstances.
However, constitutional change cannot become constitutional destruction.
The Basic Structure Doctrine therefore provides a substantive limit, while judicial review provides the mechanism through which that limit is enforced.
Thus:
Article 368 → Power to Amend
Basic Structure → Limit on Power
Judicial Review → Enforcement of Limit
Together, these principles ensure that:
Constitutional change remains possible without permitting the destruction of constitutional identity.
