The statement suggests that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is circumscribed and cannot be broadened into an unrestricted or absolute power. It raises the question of whether Parliament, under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, has the authority to dismantle or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by extending its amending power.

The concept of the Basic Structure was propounded by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973. The court held that while Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution, such power is not unlimited. It stated that there are certain essential features of the Constitution, known as the "Basic Structure," which cannot be altered even by formal amendment. The court's rationale behind this was to prevent the abuse of amending power that could potentially undermine the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

Therefore, according to the doctrine of Basic Structure, Parliament cannot destroy or alter those fundamental aspects of the Constitution that form its foundation and are essential for preserving its integrity and democratic nature. These aspects encompass principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, and democracy.

Although Article 368 provides Parliament with the ability to amend the Constitution, it cannot be utilized to obliterate the Basic Structure. Any amendment seeking to destroy the Basic Structure would be unconstitutional and liable to be struck down by the judiciary as void. The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution and has the power of judicial review to ensure that changes made by Parliament do not violate the Basic Structure.

In conclusion, Parliament's power under Article 368 of the Constitution is restricted and cannot be expanded into absolute power. It cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution as determined by the judiciary. The Basic Structure doctrine serves as a safeguard against potential misuse of amending power, ensuring the preservation of the Constitutional principles that form the bedrock of Indian democracy.

Parliament's Amending Power and the Basic Structure Doctrine: A Balancing Act

The statement "Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power" highlights a crucial principle in India's constitutional framework. While Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments that could fundamentally alter the Constitution's core principles.

Article 368 and the Amending Power:

• Article 368 outlines the process for amending the Constitution, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament and, in some cases, ratification by state legislatures.
• This process emphasizes the gravity of constitutional amendments and underscores the need for a broad consensus.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: A Judicial Invention:

• The Basic Structure Doctrine, born from the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), sets limits on Parliament's amending power.
• It holds that certain essential features of the Constitution, forming its "basic structure", are beyond the reach of amendment.
• These features include:
• Federalism
• Secularism
• Democracy
• Separation of Powers
• Fundamental Rights
• Judicial Review

Can Parliament Destroy the Basic Structure?:

The answer is no. Parliament cannot, through the amending process, destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. While Article 368 grants the power to amend, the Basic Structure Doctrine, as a judicial interpretation, acts as a check against excessive amendment.

Implications:

• This doctrine establishes a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional integrity.
• It recognizes the dynamic nature of the Constitution while ensuring its fundamental principles remain inviolable.
• It allows the Constitution to evolve with time, while preserving its core values.

Examples:

• The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) attempted to significantly alter the Constitution, including making the Fundamental Rights subject to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
• The Supreme Court, upholding the Basic Structure Doctrine, struck down these provisions, preventing a fundamental shift in the Constitution's character.

Conclusion:

Parliament's amending power under Article 368, though extensive, is not absolute. The Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicially crafted limitation, ensures that the fundamental principles underpinning the Indian Constitution remain protected from being eroded by amendment. This dynamic equilibrium between parliamentary power and constitutional safeguards is crucial for maintaining the integrity and spirit of the Indian Constitution.

A classic question in Constitutional Law!

The statement you've quoted is a cornerstone of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, and it sets the tone for understanding the limitations of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, this power is not unfettered. The Supreme Court, in a series of landmark judgments, has established that Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot be used to destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The concept of "Basic Structure" was first introduced by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its Basic Structure, which includes fundamental features such as:

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
2. Democracy and republican form of government
3. Separation of powers
4. Secularism
5. Federalism
6. Supreme Court's power of judicial review
7. Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution

The Court reasoned that the Constitution's Basic Structure is essential to its identity and cannot be altered or destroyed through the amendment process. Any attempt to do so would be tantamount to rewriting the Constitution, which is beyond Parliament's authority.

The Supreme Court has reiterated this principle in subsequent cases, including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). These judgments have established that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not limitless and cannot be used to destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

In other words, while Parliament can amend the Constitution to make changes to various provisions, it cannot use its amending power to alter the Constitution's fundamental character or destroy its essential features.

To illustrate, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to:

• Abolish democracy and establish a monarchy
• Convert India into a theocratic state
• Abolish the Supreme Court's power of judicial review
• Repeal fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution

Attempts to do so would be considered unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the statement you've quoted accurately reflects the limitations of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. While Parliament can make changes to the Constitution, it cannot use its amending power to destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court remains the guardian of the Constitution and will ensure that any such attempts are thwarted.