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.