Article 368 gives Parliament the constitutional power to amend the Constitution.
However, this power is:
Wide but Not Unlimited
The Supreme Court has held that Parliament can amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot:
Destroy its Basic Structure
This creates a constitutional balance between:
Parliamentary Amending Power + Constitutional Supremacy
The principal provision governing constitutional amendment is:
Article 368
It is located in:
Part XX — Amendment of the Constitution
Article 368 gives Parliament the:
Constituent Power
to amend the Constitution.
Parliament's amending power is different from its ordinary:
Legislative Power
Ordinary Law → Legislative Power
Constitutional Amendment → Constituent Power
Constituent power refers to the power to:
Create, alter or amend constitutional arrangements
Parliament exercises a form of:
Constituent Power
when it amends the Constitution under Article 368.
This power is still:
Derived from the Constitution
It is therefore not an unlimited power existing above the Constitution.
Parliament exercises constituent power, but does not possess unlimited constituent sovereignty.
Parliament can amend:
subject to constitutional limitations.
The Constitution is therefore:
Amendable
and not completely rigid.
Yes.
The present constitutional position is:
Fundamental Rights can be amended
However, an amendment cannot:
Destroy the Basic Structure
Shankari Prasad → Amendment Power Upheld
Golaknath → FR Amendment Restricted
Kesavananda Bharati → FR Amendable, Basic Structure Protected
FR → Amendable
Basic Structure → Protected
The Preamble can be amended.
The:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
added:
to the Preamble.
However, Parliament cannot amend the Preamble in a manner that:
Destroys Basic Structure
Preamble → Amendable
Basic Structure → Limitation
Parliament can amend:
Article 368 itself
However, Parliament cannot amend Article 368 to make its amending power:
Unlimited
The:
Limited Amending Power
is itself part of the Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980
Article 368 → Amendable
Unlimited Amending Power → Not Permitted
Parliament can amend provisions affecting the federal structure.
However, amendments concerning specified federal provisions require:
Special Majority + Ratification by at least half of the States
This provides a:
Federal Safeguard
Federal Provisions → Parliament + 1/2 States
Federalism is part of the:
Basic Structure
Therefore, Parliament can modify federal arrangements but cannot completely destroy:
The Federal Character of the Constitution
Federal Arrangement → Can Change
Federal Character → Cannot Be Destroyed
Democracy is part of the:
Basic Structure
Parliament can reform:
But it cannot amend the Constitution to eliminate:
Democratic Government
Free and Fair Elections
were recognised as part of Basic Structure in:
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
Secularism is part of the:
Basic Structure
Parliament can amend provisions relating to religious freedom and State institutions within constitutional limits.
However, it cannot transform India into a constitutional system that destroys:
Secularism
Secularism → Basic Structure
Judicial Review is an important element of:
Basic Structure
Parliament cannot use Article 368 to completely eliminate the power of courts to examine constitutional validity.
Kesavananda Bharati
and:
Minerva Mills
Parliament → Amend
Judiciary → Review
Basic Structure → Limit
An independent judiciary is necessary for:
Therefore, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy:
Judicial Independence
A constitutional amendment cannot legally eliminate the institution required to enforce the Constitution itself.
The constitutional system distributes functions among:
The Basic Structure protects the essential:
Separation of Powers
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to completely eliminate:
Checks and Balances
Separation of Powers → Institutional Balance
The:
Rule of Law
is part of the constitutional structure.
Government power must remain subject to:
Constitution + Law
Parliament cannot use its amending power to establish:
Arbitrary or Uncontrolled Government Power
Rule of Law → Limited Government
One of the most important limitations is:
Parliament's Own Amending Power Is Limited
The Supreme Court established this principle through:
Kesavananda Bharati
and reaffirmed it strongly in:
Minerva Mills
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to give Parliament:
Unlimited Power to Amend the Constitution
Limited Amending Power → Basic Structure
In:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
the Supreme Court held:
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution
but:
Cannot destroy the Basic Structure
This was a middle path between:
Golaknath
and:
Unlimited Parliamentary Amending Power
Golaknath → Too Restrictive
Kesavananda → Balanced Approach
In:
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967
the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend:
Fundamental Rights
This significantly restricted Parliament's amending power.
Parliament responded through:
24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971
which strengthened the constitutional basis of its amending power.
Golaknath → Restriction
24th Amendment → Parliamentary Response
The:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
was enacted partly in response to:
Golaknath
It:
It strengthened Parliament's:
Amending Power
But:
Kesavananda Bharati
later established that this power remains subject to:
Basic Structure
The:
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976
attempted to significantly expand Parliament's amending power.
It sought to prevent courts from questioning Constitutional Amendments and attempted to establish that:
No limitation could be placed on Parliament's amending power
These provisions were later invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980
In:
Minerva Mills, 1980
the Supreme Court held that:
Limited Amending Power
is itself part of the Basic Structure.
Therefore:
Parliament cannot make its own amending power unlimited.
The judgment also reaffirmed:
Judicial Review
and:
Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Minerva Mills → Limited Power
The Constitution contains:
Fundamental Rights
and:
Directive Principles of State Policy
Parliament may amend provisions relating to both.
However, amendments cannot destroy the constitutional:
Balance and Harmony
between individual liberty and social welfare.
Minerva Mills, 1980
Rights + Welfare → Constitutional Balance
Parliament can:
Amend
Modify
Add
Delete
Reorganise
constitutional provisions.
It can make substantial constitutional changes.
The amendment must not:
Destroy Basic Structure
Parliament cannot:
Change → Yes
Destruction → No
No.
This is a common misunderstanding.
The doctrine does not prevent Parliament from making:
Major Constitutional Changes
It only prevents changes that:
Damage or Destroy Basic Structure
Basic Structure is a limitation on the manner and extent of amendment, not a prohibition on constitutional evolution.
The Basic Structure Doctrine creates a constitutional relationship between:
Parliament
and:
Supreme Court
Represents:
Democratic Political Authority
Protects:
Constitutional Supremacy
Provides:
Substantive Constitutional Boundary
Parliamentary Democracy + Judicial Review + Basic Structure
No.
The Supreme Court does not possess general legislative power.
Its role is to:
Interpret and Enforce the Constitution
The Basic Structure Doctrine allows the Court to review whether Parliament has exceeded its constitutional amending power.
Judicial Review does not make the judiciary sovereign; it makes the Constitution supreme.
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
not absolute:
Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliament's authority exists within:
Constitutional Boundaries
United Kingdom → Parliamentary Sovereignty
India → Constitutional Supremacy
India's Parliament is powerful, but:
Not Constitutionally Unlimited
A Constitutional Amendment can be challenged before the:
Supreme Court
if it allegedly violates the:
Basic Structure
The Court examines:
Substance and Effect
of the amendment.
The question is not merely:
"Was the amendment procedurally passed?"
It can also be:
"Does the amendment destroy Basic Structure?"
The amendment power has two dimensions.
Was the amendment passed according to:
Article 368
and the required majority?
Does the amendment violate:
Basic Structure?
Valid Procedure + No Basic Structure Damage = Constitutionally Sustainable Amendment
The ultimate purpose of limiting Parliament's amending power is protection of:
Constitutional Identity
An amendment can change constitutional arrangements.
But it cannot transform the Constitution into a fundamentally different constitutional order by destroying its foundational principles.
Amendment → Evolution
Basic Structure → Identity
Parliament may place laws in the:
Ninth Schedule
through Constitutional Amendment.
However, Ninth Schedule protection is not absolute.
Established an important temporal distinction:
24 April 1973
Held that relevant Ninth Schedule laws inserted after this date can be tested against:
Basic Structure
Ninth Schedule → Not Absolute Immunity
When a Constitutional Amendment is challenged, the Supreme Court examines whether the amendment:
Alters or Destroys
the essential constitutional features.
The Court focuses particularly on:
Effect
rather than merely the formal wording.
Constitutional identity is assessed through the substantive impact of the amendment.
The answer requires careful distinction.
Parliament may:
Modify aspects of a constitutional feature
but cannot:
Destroy its essential identity
Federal arrangements can be modified.
But:
Federal Character Cannot Be Destroyed
Judicial institutions can be reformed.
But:
Judicial Independence Cannot Be Destroyed
Modification → Possible
Destruction → Prohibited
The amendment process itself is democratic because:
The Basic Structure Doctrine adds:
Constitutional Protection
against democratic majorities using constitutional power destructively.
Democracy operates within constitutional limits.
Federal amendments require State participation where specified.
This prevents Parliament from unilaterally changing certain aspects of the:
Union-State Constitutional Relationship
Federal Provision → Parliament + States
This combines:
Parliamentary Democracy + Federal Consent
Constitutional amendments should respect:
The amendment power should therefore be exercised as:
Constitutional Responsibility
rather than:
Majoritarian Power
Critics argue that the Court created a limitation:
Not Expressly Written in the Constitution
Judges can invalidate amendments passed by elected representatives.
Basic Structure has:
No Exhaustive Definition
The doctrine can create tension between:
Parliamentary Authority
and:
Judicial Authority
Parliament remains subject to the Constitution.
Temporary majorities cannot destroy foundational principles.
Democratic institutions cannot legally be abolished through amendment.
Foundational constitutional protections remain secure.
The federal character cannot be eliminated.
The institution responsible for constitutional interpretation remains protected.
Article 368 → Parliament's Amending Power
Amending Power → Constituent Power
Power → Wide but Limited
Fundamental Rights → Amendable
Preamble → Amendable
Article 368 → Amendable
Basic Structure → Cannot Be Destroyed
Limited Amending Power → Basic Structure
Judicial Review → Basic Structure
Federalism → Basic Structure
Democracy → Basic Structure
Secularism → Basic Structure
Judicial Independence → Basic Structure
Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
False
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
False
Fundamental Rights can be amended subject to:
Basic Structure
Basic Structure prohibits all constitutional amendments.
False
It prohibits:
Destruction of Basic Structure
Parliament can amend Article 368 to make its amending power unlimited.
False
Limited Amending Power is itself part of:
Basic Structure
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments is not permitted.
False
It is available where:
Basic Structure
is implicated.
The 24th Amendment established unlimited parliamentary power.
False
It strengthened Parliament's power, but:
Kesavananda Bharati
placed it under the Basic Structure limitation.
Minerva Mills abolished Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
False
It reaffirmed:
Limited Amending Power
Parliament cannot modify federal arrangements because federalism is Basic Structure.
False
Federal arrangements can be modified.
The:
Federal Character
cannot be destroyed.
For:
"Discuss the scope and limitations of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution."
Use:
Mention:
Article 368 + Constituent Power
Golaknath
↓
Kesavananda Bharati
↓
Minerva Mills
Parliament has the power to change the Constitution, but not the power to destroy its constitutional identity.
"Article 368 confers constituent power on Parliament to amend the Constitution, enabling it to respond to changing social, political and institutional requirements. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this power is not unlimited and cannot be exercised to destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution."
"The Basic Structure Doctrine therefore does not weaken Parliament's constitutional role; rather, it defines its boundaries. The Indian model seeks to ensure that elected majorities retain adequate space for constitutional reform while preventing constitutional amendment from becoming an instrument for constitutional destruction."
Article 368
Constituent Power
Wide
Basic Structure
Amendable
Amendable
Amendable
Special Majority + 1/2 States
Available
Golaknath → Restriction
Kesavananda → Basic Structure
Minerva Mills → Limited Power
Waman Rao → Ninth Schedule
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule Review
Parliament
→ Constituent Power
→ Article 368
→ Wide Amending Power
→ Fundamental Rights Amendable
→ Preamble Amendable
→ Article 368 Amendable
→ Federal Ratification Where Required
→ Judicial Review
→ Basic Structure Limitation
→ Constitutional Supremacy
Parliament can amend the Constitution.
Parliament can make substantial constitutional changes.
Parliament cannot make its amending power unlimited.
Parliament cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Thus, Parliament possesses constitutional power, not constitutional supremacy over the Constitution itself.
