Introduction
The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the Parliament and the Constitution. While the Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that such amendments do not violate the basic structure doctrine, thereby safeguarding the fundamental rights and democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Main Body
Basic Structure Doctrine
- The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the basic structure doctrine.
- This doctrine asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments.
Judicial Review
- The Supreme Court exercises judicial review to evaluate the validity of constitutional amendments.
- Amendments that infringe upon fundamental rights or alter the democratic fabric can be struck down.
Key Cases
- In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court reiterated that the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is essential.
- In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court nullified the 39th Amendment, reinforcing its role as a guardian of the Constitution.
Limitations on Parliamentary Power
- The Supreme Court's ability to review amendments restricts Parliament from exercising arbitrary power.
- This ensures that constitutional amendments reflect the will of the people and adhere to democratic values.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India acts as a bulwark against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament in amending the Constitution. By upholding the basic structure doctrine and exercising judicial review, the Court ensures that the fundamental rights and democratic ethos of the nation are preserved, reinforcing the Constitution as a living document that reflects the core values of Indian society.