Basic Structure of Indian Constitution | In 7 Steps | Indian Polity
Summary
TLDRThis 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
📜 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.
🏛 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.
📚 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Basic Structure Doctrine
💡Article 13
💡Article 368
💡Fundamental Rights
💡Shankar Prasad Case
💡Sergeant's English Case
💡Golak Nath Case
💡Twenty-Fourth Amendment Act
💡Kesavananda Bharati Case
💡Basic Features
💡42nd Amendment Act
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)