The statement that the Supreme Court of India keeps a check on the arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution is a subject of critical discussion. While the Indian judiciary has played a significant role in upholding the basic structure of the Constitution, it has also been criticized for certain decisions that seemingly encroach upon the powers of the Parliament.

On one hand, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it to strike down any act of the Parliament that violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This has been instrumental in ensuring that the Parliament does not exercise arbitrary power and maintains constitutional limits. The court has, on numerous occasions, struck down amendments that were against the fundamental rights or the basic features of the Constitution, such as the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) that established the doctrine of basic structure.

However, critics argue that the Court's power of judicial review has sometimes been excessively used, and it has overstepped its boundaries by striking down validly enacted constitutional amendments. This has raised concerns about judicial activism and the judiciary's interference in the legislative domain. For example, in the NJAC case (2015), the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment that aimed to reform the process of judicial appointments, arguing that it violated the independence of the judiciary. Critics argue that such decisions undermine the democratic mandate of the Parliament and its ability to carry out necessary constitutional reforms.

Moreover, the process of amending the Constitution itself is designed to strike a balance between the powers of the Parliament and the judiciary. Article 368 of the Constitution provides for a detailed procedure for amending the Constitution, including a mandatory requirement of ratification by a majority of states. This emphasizes that amending the Constitution is not an arbitrary power of the Parliament but a deliberate process that involves various checks and balances.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in checking the arbitrary power of the Parliament through its power of judicial review, there remains a scope for critical discussion. The court's intervention should strike a balance between upholding the basic structure of the Constitution and respecting the democratic process of constitutional amendment by the Parliament. The relationship between the court and the Parliament needs to be constantly assessed and debated to ensure a healthy system of checks and balances.

The Supreme Court of India: A Check on Parliament's Constitutional Amendment Power?

The Indian Constitution grants the Parliament extensive power to amend itself, with only a few limitations. While the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in upholding the Constitution's spirit, its ability to check the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is a complex and debated issue. This essay will critically discuss this relationship, highlighting both the Supreme Court's limitations and its crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights.

Arguments for the Supreme Court's Check:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the "basic structure" doctrine. This doctrine dictates that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental features like the sovereignty of India, secularism, and the rule of law. This provides a crucial check on arbitrary amendments.
• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it to scrutinize any legislation, including constitutional amendments, for their conformity with the Constitution. If a law violates the basic structure, the Court can strike it down. This ensures the Constitution remains supreme and protects fundamental rights.
• Protecting Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to safeguard fundamental rights. Even in the context of amendments, the Court has ensured that the essence of fundamental rights is preserved. This has often led to restrictions on Parliament's ability to drastically alter these rights.

Arguments against the Supreme Court's Check:

• Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Indian Constitution, while granting significant judicial powers, leans towards parliamentary sovereignty. This means the Parliament, representing the people, holds the primary power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court's role should be limited to ensuring the amendment process is carried out fairly and constitutionally.
• Limited Scope of Basic Structure: The "basic structure" doctrine is open to interpretation and may be susceptible to judicial overreach. The Court's definition of "basic structure" is evolving, leaving uncertainty and potentially encroaching on Parliament's legislative domain.
• Political Ramifications: The Court striking down amendments could lead to political conflicts and undermine the principle of elected representatives enacting laws. It could also create a perception of judicial activism and weaken the democratic process.

The Balancing Act:

The Supreme Court's role in checking Parliament's amendment power is a delicate balancing act. While it is essential to safeguard the Constitution's core principles and fundamental rights, it is equally important to respect the Parliament's authority and the democratic mandate.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in ensuring the Constitution's integrity and protecting fundamental rights. While the "basic structure" doctrine and judicial review grant the Court significant power, it is a power that must be exercised judiciously and with due respect for the democratic process. Ultimately, the Court's success in checking arbitrary power lies in striking a balance between upholding the Constitution's spirit and respecting the Parliament's legislative authority. This delicate balance ensures both the supremacy of the Constitution and the integrity of the democratic system.

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution and ensuring that the parliamentary majority does not abuse its power to amend it. While the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to review and strike down any amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution. This delicate balance of power between the two institutions is essential to preventing the arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament.

The Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution through a special majority. This power is not unfettered, however, and is subject to certain limitations. The Constitution itself provides for certain fundamental rights and principles that cannot be altered or abolished. For instance, Article 13 prohibits the State from making laws that are inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which enables it to review and declare any law, including a constitutional amendment, as invalid if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This power is derived from various articles of the Constitution, including Article 13, which confers the power to decide on the validity of laws, and Article 32, which provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court laid down the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, and judicial review, cannot be altered or abolished by the Parliament. This doctrine has been reaffirmed in subsequent judgments, including Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).

Criticisms and Limitations

While the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is essential to checking the arbitrary power of the Parliament, there are certain limitations and criticisms associated with this role:

1. Judicial activism: Some argue that the Court's power of judicial review is too broad and allows for judicial activism, where the Court usurps the legislative function and imposes its own views on the Constitution.
2. Political sensitivity: The Court's decisions may be influenced by political considerations, which can undermine its independence and impartiality.
3. Limited scope: The Court's power of judicial review is limited to reviewing the constitutionality of laws and amendments, and it cannot intervene in matters of policy or legislative discretion.
4. Delay and backlogs: The Court's docket is often crowded, leading to delays and backlogs in the disposal of cases, which can undermine the effectiveness of the check on the Parliament's power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India plays a vital role in keeping a check on the arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution. While there are limitations and criticisms associated with this role, the Court's power of judicial review is essential to ensuring that the Constitution remains a vibrant and living document that protects the rights and liberties of the people. The delicate balance between the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and the Court's power to review and strike down unconstitutional amendments is a hallmark of India's constitutional democracy.