Constitutional Amendments Part2

Summary

In this lecture, the focus is on the amendment process of the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 368, and its relevance to fundamental rights. The script explores key cases, including Shankari Prasad and Golak Nath, where the Supreme Court debated the extent of Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. It discusses the limitations imposed by the Constitution and how amendments must adhere to the basic structure doctrine. The lecture also highlights the legal reasoning behind the judiciary's decisions and the process for constitutional amendments in India.

Takeaways

• 📜 The lecture focuses on the amendment of the Constitution, with a specific discussion on Article 368.
• 📘 The term 'constituent power' in Article 368 means Parliament holds amending power but is not equivalent to the original constituent assembly.
• ⚖️ The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
• 🛡️ Fundamental rights, guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, can be amended through Article 368.
• 👩‍⚖️ In the Shankari Prasad case, it was held that Parliament could amend fundamental rights under Article 368, as amendments were not considered 'law' under Article 13(2).
• 📝 The Golaknath case overturned this view, ruling that fundamental rights were outside the scope of Parliament's amendatory powers.
• ⚔️ The Golaknath judgment argued that the Constitution implied a limitation on Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights.
• ⚖️ The ruling stated that the power to amend the Constitution lies within the plenary legislative powers of Parliament, as outlined in Articles 245, 246, and 248.
• 📜 Article 368 provides the procedure for amending the Constitution, but the actual power to amend comes from Parliament's legislative authority.
• 🗳️ If fundamental rights are to be significantly altered, this can only be done by convening a new constituent assembly, not merely by Parliament's amending power.

Q & A

What is the significance of Article 368 in the Indian Constitution?

Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, this power is not unlimited, as it must operate within the framework of the Constitution, ensuring that the basic structure remains intact.

What is the term 'constituent power' mentioned in Article 368?

The term 'constituent power' refers to the authority given to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. However, this power does not transform Parliament into a constituent assembly; it remains a legislative body governed by constitutional limitations.

How did the Supreme Court rule in the case of Shankari Prasad Singh versus Union of India regarding Article 13 and Article 368?

In Shankari Prasad Singh vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that amendments to the Constitution, including those affecting fundamental rights, are within the scope of Article 368. The Court held that Article 13, which prohibits laws infringing on fundamental rights, does not apply to constitutional amendments.

What was the main argument in the Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab case?

In Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are outside the scope of Parliament's amending power. The Court argued that any amendment abridging or taking away fundamental rights would be unconstitutional, as it conflicts with the Constitution's scheme of reserving fundamental freedoms for the people.

How did the Supreme Court reconcile Article 13 and Article 368 in the Golak Nath case?

The Court in Golak Nath held that Article 13 protects fundamental rights from being amended by Parliament. It stated that Article 13 is not just a declaration but a reservation of these rights, making them immune to the amendatory process under Article 368.

What was the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golak Nath case?

The Golak Nath decision introduced an implied limitation on Parliament's amending power, stating that fundamental rights are beyond the reach of amendments. However, the decision was given a prospective effect, meaning it did not invalidate past amendments.

Does Article 368 provide the power to amend the Constitution directly?

No, Article 368 provides the procedure for amending the Constitution, but the power to amend is considered part of the Parliament’s plenary legislative power, derived from other provisions of the Constitution, such as Articles 245, 246, and 248.

What was the key issue regarding fundamental rights in the First and Fourth Constitutional Amendments?

The First and Fourth Constitutional Amendments were challenged for abridging fundamental rights. The petitioners argued that these amendments violated Article 13, which protects fundamental rights from laws that infringe upon them.

How did the Court address the issue of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?

The Court acknowledged that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but emphasized that this power is limited by the Constitution itself. Any amendment affecting fundamental rights must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

What is the relationship between the legislative process and the amending process according to the script?

The script explains that both the legislative and amending processes are forms of lawmaking. While the process of amending the Constitution requires a special majority and, in some cases, ratification by state legislatures, it is still considered a legislative process.