“The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.” Discuss critically. (UPSC 2013, 10 Marks, )

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of the Constitution and ensuring that the power of the Parliament is not exercised arbitrarily. It acts as a check on the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution, thereby safeguarding the democratic and constitutional values of the country.

Explanation

Supreme Court of India: Safeguarding Constitutional Amendments from Arbitrary Power

  •   Judicial Review: The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the Parliament, including constitutional amendments. This ensures that the Parliament does not exceed its powers or violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
  •   Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court has established the basic structure doctrine, which states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. This doctrine acts as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments that may undermine the core principles of the Constitution.
  •   Interpretation of the Constitution: The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. This includes determining the scope and limitations of the amending power of the Parliament. By providing a definitive interpretation, the Court prevents the Parliament from misusing its power to amend the Constitution arbitrarily.
  •   Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court is responsible for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. If a constitutional amendment infringes upon these rights, the Court can strike it down as unconstitutional. This ensures that the Parliament does not abuse its power to curtail individual liberties.
  •   Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court allows citizens to file PILs, which enable them to challenge the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This mechanism empowers individuals to hold the Parliament accountable for any arbitrary amendments that may violate the principles of justice, equality, or democracy.
  •   Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court acts as a check on the Parliament by upholding the principle of separation of powers. It ensures that the Parliament does not encroach upon the powers of the judiciary or violate the principles of checks and balances.
  •   Precedents and Case Law: The Supreme Court relies on precedents and case law to guide its decisions on constitutional amendments. By referring to past judgments, the Court maintains consistency and prevents the Parliament from making arbitrary changes to the Constitution.

Criticisms of the Supreme Court’s Role in Checking Parliament’s Amending Power

  • Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the Supreme Court's intervention in constitutional amendments amounts to judicial overreach, where the judiciary encroaches upon the powers of the legislature. This, they argue, disrupts the balance of power between the three branches of government.
  • Ambiguity in Basic Structure: The doctrine of the basic structure is criticized for its vagueness. There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, leading to uncertainty and inconsistent judicial decisions.
  • Potential for Judicial Supremacy: By assuming the power to strike down amendments, the Supreme Court is perceived by some as placing itself above the Constitution and the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.
  • Constraints on Parliamentary Sovereignty: The doctrine is seen as a constraint on the sovereignty of Parliament. Critics argue that the elected representatives should have the ultimate authority to amend the Constitution to reflect the changing needs and aspirations of society.
  • Slowing Down Reforms: The possibility of judicial review may slow down necessary constitutional reforms. Parliament might hesitate to introduce progressive changes due to the fear of judicial invalidation, thereby hindering the evolution of the Constitution.
  • Lack of Accountability: Unlike Parliament, the judiciary is not directly accountable to the people. Critics argue that decisions affecting the constitutional framework should be made by those who are directly accountable to the electorate, not by unelected judges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India plays a critical role in keeping a check on the arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. Through judicial review, interpretation, protection of fundamental rights, and other mechanisms, the Court ensures that the Parliament exercises its amending power within the limits set by the Constitution and in the best interest of the citizens.