Basic Structure of Indian Constitution | In 7 Steps | Indian Polity

Summary

This video introduces a series on the fundamental principles of constitutional law, focusing on the interplay between Article 13, which protects fundamental rights, and Article 368, which allows constitutional amendments. It explores landmark cases like Shankar Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golaknath, and Kesavananda, discussing the power struggle between the judiciary and the Parliament. The series delves into the concept of basic structure and the limitations on amending power, concluding that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic features, thus preserving the Constitution's identity as a precious heritage.

Takeaways

• 📜 The video discusses the evolution of the interpretation of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the power dynamics between Article 13 (fundamental rights) and Article 368 (amending power).
• 🏛 The first case mentioned, Shankar Prasad vs. Union of India, established that Article 13 protects fundamental rights, but Article 368 allows for constitutional amendments, including to these rights.
• 📝 The first amendment act introduced Articles 31A and 31B to protect laws curtailing property rights, leading to debates on the limits of Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights.
• 🤔 The Sajjan Singh case further explored the extent to which the Constitution could be amended, concluding that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• 👨‍⚖️ Golaknath vs. State of Punjab was pivotal, as it introduced the concept of judicial review over the amending power, stating that Parliament's power to amend is not unlimited.
• 🛑 The 24th Amendment Act was a legislative response to Golaknath, aiming to clarify and limit the applicability of Article 13 to Article 368, asserting Parliament's supremacy in constitutional amendments.
• 🏛️ The Kesavananda Bharati case redefined the balance of power, establishing the 'basic structure doctrine' which posits that the Constitution's basic features cannot be amended.
• 📉 The Supreme Court in Kesavananda clarified that while Parliament has broad power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic features, thus setting boundaries to legislative power.
• 🛑 The 42nd Amendment Act was challenged and some of its clauses were deemed unconstitutional for infringing upon the Constitution's basic features.
• 🏛️ The final takeaway is the affirmation of the Constitution's supremacy, recognizing that while Parliament represents the people's will, it cannot exercise unlimited power to amend the Constitution's identity.
• 📚 The video series aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of these constitutional principles and their implications on the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video series?

The main focus of the video series is to help viewers understand important constitutional principles and methods, particularly the interplay between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution.

What are the two key articles discussed in the video?

The two key articles discussed are Article 13, which protects fundamental rights, and Article 368, which holds the power to amend the Constitution.

What is the significance of Article 13 in the context of the Constitution?

Article 13 is significant as it serves as the protector of fundamental rights, ensuring that these rights are not infringed upon by laws made by the Parliament.

What power does Article 368 of the Constitution confer?

Article 368 confers the power to amend the Constitution, including its fundamental rights, subject to certain limitations and judicial review.

What was the first case discussed in the video?

The first case discussed is Shankar Prasad vs. Union of India, which dealt with the First Amendment Act and the issue of the right to property.

What was the Mondavi system mentioned in the script?

The script does not provide specific details about the Mondavi system, but it mentions that the First Amendment Act was known for the abolition of this system.

What was the outcome of the Shankar Prasad case regarding the amendment of fundamental rights?

The outcome of the Shankar Prasad case was that the Parliament has the power to amend fundamental rights, but the judgment also clarified the meaning of 'law' in Article 13.

What was the significance of the Golak Nath case in the discussion of constitutional amendments?

The Golak Nath case was significant because it established that the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review.

What changes were made by the 24th Amendment Act to Articles 13 and 368?

The 24th Amendment Act introduced Clause 4 in Article 13, which exempted Article 368 from judicial review, and added Clause 3 to Article 368, explicitly stating that Article 13 does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.

What was the Supreme Court's stance in the Kesavananda Bharati case regarding the amending power of Parliament?

In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot do so in a way that destroys its basic features or identity.

What does the term 'basic structure' refer to in the context of constitutional amendments?

The term 'basic structure' refers to the fundamental features of the Constitution that must be preserved even when amending the Constitution, and these features cannot be altered or destroyed.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Constitutional Amendment Debates

This paragraph delves into the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution, focusing on Articles 13 and 368, which respectively protect fundamental rights and grant the power to amend the Constitution. The discussion highlights the historical legal tussle between the Supreme Court and Parliament over the extent of Parliament's amending power. It introduces key cases such as Shrikrishna Prasad Singh vs. Union of India and Golaknath vs. State of Punjab, which shaped the understanding of these powers. The paragraph also touches on the implications of the 24th and 42nd Amendment Acts on the balance of power and the concept of basic features of the Constitution that cannot be amended.

05:01

🏛 The Struggle for Constitutional Supremacy

This segment continues the exploration of constitutional amendments, examining the evolution of the Supreme Court's stance on the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It discusses the landmark cases of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, which established the doctrine of basic structure and the concept that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution are immutable. The paragraph also addresses the Parliament's response through the 24th Amendment Act and the subsequent judicial review in the Basic Structure Doctrine, emphasizing the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's essential features.

10:03

📚 Conclusion on Constitutional Integrity

The final paragraph wraps up the series by summarizing the key takeaways from the constitutional debates and cases discussed. It emphasizes the Constitution's status as a precious heritage that must retain its identity, highlighting the importance of maintaining its basic features. The paragraph concludes with an invitation for viewers to seek further clarification on topics of interest, marking the end of the current discussion and setting the stage for future lessons.

Keywords

💡Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle in Indian constitutional law that asserts that there are certain features and principles so integral to the Constitution that they cannot be altered or destroyed even by an amendment. In the video, this concept is central to the discussion about the limits of Parliament's amending power, as seen in the tussle between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution.

💡Article 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution protects the fundamental rights of citizens and mandates that all laws must be in compliance with these rights. The video discusses how Article 13 serves as a guardian of these rights, especially when it comes to potential amendments that could infringe upon them, as seen in the context of the Shangri Prasad case.

💡Article 368

Article 368 provides the procedure for amending the Constitution of India and is a focal point in the video's discussion on the amending power of the Parliament. It is highlighted in the script as the source of authority that allows Parliament to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, which raises questions about the extent of this power.

💡Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights are the basic rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution of India, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and the right to life. The video script discusses the permanence and protectability of these rights, especially in the context of constitutional amendments that might affect them.

💡Shankar Prasad Case

The Shankar Prasad case is a landmark judgment in the video that established the interpretation of Article 13 and Article 368, particularly regarding the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights. The case is used to illustrate the initial understanding that Parliament is supreme in matters of constitutional amendments.

💡Sergeant's English Case

The Sergeant's English case is another significant case mentioned in the video that further explored the limits of constitutional amendments, specifically concerning the amendment of fundamental rights. It is used to show the evolving interpretation of the amending power and the debate over what can and cannot be amended.

💡Golak Nath Case

The Golak Nath case is a pivotal moment in the video's narrative, where the Supreme Court of India ruled that the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review. This case is highlighted as the first instance where the judiciary asserted its supremacy over the Parliament in constitutional matters.

💡Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act is discussed in the video as a legislative response to the Golak Nath case, aiming to clarify and expand the Parliament's amending power. It is used to demonstrate the ongoing struggle between the judiciary and the legislature over the interpretation and application of constitutional amendments.

💡Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment mentioned in the video that established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be altered even by amendments. This case is crucial in the video's discussion on the limits of Parliament's amending power and the judiciary's role in preserving the Constitution's essential features.

💡Basic Features

Basic Features refer to the core elements of the Constitution that are considered indispensable and cannot be amended away. In the video, the concept of basic features is central to the discussion of constitutional amendments and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's identity and integrity.

💡42nd Amendment Act

The 42nd Amendment Act is highlighted in the video as a controversial legislative act that was challenged for potentially undermining the basic features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision on this act is used to illustrate the final resolution in the debate over the limits of Parliament's amending power and the supremacy of the Constitution.

Highlights

Introduction to a series of videos on understanding important principles and methods of constitutional law.

Discussion on the basic structure doctrine and its significance in constitutional interpretation.

Article 13 as the protector of fundamental rights and Article 368 as the power to amend the Constitution.

The conflict between Article 13 and Article 368 and its implications for constitutional amendments.

Shankar Prasad vs. Union of India case and its impact on the interpretation of the right to property.

The First Amendment Act and the abolition of the Mondavi system.

The concept of constituent authority and its role in amending the Constitution.

S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India case and the debate over the amendment of fundamental rights.

The judgment on the unlimited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

Golaknath vs. State of Punjab case and the establishment of limitations on the power to amend the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's assertion of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

The 24th Amendment Act and its changes to Articles 13 and 368 to limit judicial review.

The Kesavananda Bharati case and the concept of basic features of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's balanced judgment on the scope of constitutional amendments.

The role of the Parliament in representing the will of the people for constitutional amendments.

The Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain case and the clarification on the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

The 42nd Amendment Act and its challenge to the basic features of the Constitution.

The final settlement on the supremacy of the Constitution and the limitations on Parliament's amending powers.

The Constitution as a precious heritage with an identity that cannot be destroyed.

Transcripts

hello friends this is the very first

video of a series of videos that I'm

going to do here these videos will help

you understand important principles and

methods so let's get started today I am

approaching the basic structure doctrine

now when discussing this topic two very

important articles are article 13 and

article 368 of the Constitution now

article 13 serves as the protector of

the fundamental rights whereas article

368 holds the power to amend the

Constitution

now when you clash article 13 with

article 368 some very important

questions come before us like can the

Constitution we are mended by the

parliament can the preamble be amended

can the fundamental rights permanent and

the most important of it all are is the

amending power of the parliament

exercised under 368 absolute are there

any restrictions on it but in the end

you will realize the whole discussion is

a tussle for power the question is who

is supreme the Supreme Court or the

Parliament so will decide what the

answer is in the series of events and

I'm going to discuss now now the first

case in this discussion is the Shangri

Prasad vs. Union of India the first

constitutional amendment act was tiled

in this case and the First Amendment Act

amongst other things is widely known for

the abolition of the Mondavi system so

what happened in this amendment act was

there were certain laws that were

brought about which were curtailing the

right to property and in order to

protect those laws article 31 a and 31 B

were inserted in the Constitution so

people started looking at 31 a and 31 B

as an attack on the right to property so

the question arose whether the right to

property can be a served whether the

Parliamentarians

amend the fundamental rights the

judgment followed that article 13 plus 2

which is a protector of the fundamental

rights the word law in it only means law

in ordinary sense that is when law is

made exercising the legislative power

and now

constituent authority therefore article

368 includes the power to amend the

fundamental rights in the next case in

this discussion is the sergeant's

English the state of Rajasthan the 17th

amendment act was challenged why because

it was restricting the powers of the

high code now again the discussion

started what can be amended what cannot

be amended so in this particular case

they took of you or the earlier case

that is the Shankar Prasad case and said

that the meaning of the words amendment

of this Constitution under article 368

meant amendment of any part of the

Constitution including fundamental

rights justice the hyper line with

Holker had a little difficulty accepting

the view that the fundamental rights are

nothing fundamental to the Constitution

even they can be amended like other

parts of the Constitution in this

judgment it was also said that even if

article 368 did not have the power to

amend the fundamental right the

parliamentarians can at any point of

time do a suitable amendment and include

those powers so finally in southern

Singh was a state of Rajasthan it was

settled that yes the whole of the

Constitution including the fundamental

rights can be amended the next case is

of Golic nath was a state of punjab

again the 17th amendment act was

challenged this time the question was

whether the power to amend the

fundamental right is unlimited or

limited now this case is important

because an 11 judge bench was

constituted such a large Bend was

constituted for the first time in this

case everything was reversed the Supreme

Court said that the power to amend the

Constitution including the fundamental

right is not an unlimited power it has

subjected limitations of judicial review

so this case is important because until

now we had a settle position that 368

had an unlimited power that is even 13

could not stop 368 but this case

reversed the position and said what no

368 is

temple limitations of judicial review

the supreme could even went ahead and

said the Parliament does not have any

power to amend or abridge the

fundamental right in the way of

amendments further the ambit of article

13 loss to was discussed they said that

the word law used under article 13

Clause 2 includes amendment and if any

amendment violates fundamental right it

would be void so you see up till now

there has been a tussle for power for

who supreme whether the judiciary

supreme or the parliament is supreme in

the Shankar Prasad case it was settled

that the Parliament is supreme in the

sad Johnson case again it was say to the

Parliament is supreme but for the first

time in the Golic not was a state of

punjab case it was said no article 368

is subject to limitations imposed under

article 13 so the judiciary is supreme

now in a movie if you have two heroes

the first hero comes up and says i am

supreme we all know that in the next

scene only the second hero would come up

hit the first hero and say buddy you

were mistaken i am supreme similar is

what happened next

the parliamentarians could not digest

what happened in the Golic nut case so

they came up with the twenty-fourth

amendment act did the following changes

in article 13 and 316 first in article

13 the included 13 clause 4 which said

that nothing in article 13 would apply

to 368 which means that anything can be

done under 368 and it would not attract

the attention of judicial review under

30 then under article 368 they changed

their marginal heading previously it was

the procedure for amending the

Constitution now it reads the power of

the Parliament to amend the Constitution

and the procedure thereof lastly they

added lost three to 368 with said

nothing in article 13 shall apply to 368

so the crux of the twenty-fourth

amendment was to explore the

applicability of article 13

- article 368 therefore everything that

was held in the Golic North case holds

no value after the 24th amendment act

after the 24th amendment act it was

clear that the Parliament can dilute the

Constitution including the fundamental

rights now next case needs no special

mention is the case within the party

case again the twenty-fourth amendment

Act was challenged the question arose

that what does the scope of amendment

that the Parliament reserves now this

time the Supreme Court gave a very

balanced judgment they said that the

power to amend the Constitution was

already implicit in the Constitution the

twenty-fourth amendment act merely made

it explicit or declaratory however they

said that the basic features cannot be

amended so in simple words the crux of

discussion in the party cases that you

can amend the entire Constitution to

form a new constitution however it

should survive through its basic

features which means that there are

certain implied restrictions for

amending the Constitution and the basic

features cannot be amended coming to the

question of scope of amendment under

article 368 the supreme court said that

it was not the intention of the

constitutional makers to use the word in

its widest sense it was their intention

and belief that fundamental rights along

with fundamental features would always

survive through in a welfare state now

the question comes how far can the

provisions of article 368 be amended the

supreme court said that an increase or

decrease the power of 368 should be such

that it should not lead to total

destruction of the powers and a decrease

should be such that it should not mean

freeing from all restrictions so what

they mean was an increase or decrease in

the power of article 368 should not

authorize the legislature to destroy the

basic features of the Constitution

that's it our next case is very

important as it qualified certain

features as basic features also through

this case plus foreign loss fiber added

article 368 now what was the importance

of these two clauses these clauses said

that even as part 3 of the Constitution

was amended it cannot be questioned in

any code they clearly said that there is

no limitation on the power of the

Parliament to amend the Constitution now

this case put an end to the controversy

of whose Supreme the Supreme Court or

the Parliament they said that the

Parliament represents the will of the

people and if the people want to amend

the Constitution they can exercise their

power through the Parliament there

should be no a limitation on that the

Supreme Court in this case also said

that the theory of basic structure is

very ambiguous and way and addition of

Clause 4 and laws 5 in article 368

rectify the situation now this is the

last case for our discussion in this

case the validity of the 42nd Amendment

Act as well as the two clauses that were

inserted by the 42nd amendment were

challenged the Supreme Court said that

these two articles were attacking the

basic features of the Constitution

therefore the Supreme Court held it

unconstitutional after this case it was

finally settled that the Constitution is

supreme and the Parliament cannot

exercise unlimited amending powers and

finally it was said that the

Constitution is the precious heritage

and therefore you cannot destroy its

identity hi friends I hope you are

understanding what I am teaching here do

come in below the topics in which you

need help that's it for today meet you

in next class bye-bye