Sambhav-2025

Approach Introduce by defining constitutional amendments and the role of the judiciary. Discuss how judicial intervention ensured a balance between constitutional flexibility and stability. Conclude suitably.

Introduction

The Indian judiciary, through judicial review, plays a crucial role in examining the validity of constitutional amendments. While Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court has interpreted limits on this power to ensure that amendments do not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This intervention has both strengthened constitutional stability and raised concerns about judicial overreach.

Body

Role of the Judiciary in Reviewing Constitutional Amendments:

• Judicial Review as a Constitutional Safeguard: Under Article 13 and Article 32, courts can invalidate amendments that violate fundamental rights.
  • Example: Minerva Mills Case (1980) struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: Established in Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), this doctrine prevents Parliament from amending the core values of the Constitution.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: In Minerva Mills Case (1980), the Court struck down parts of the 42^nd Amendment, ensuring that Fundamental Rights remain enforceable over Directive Principles.
• Balancing Parliamentary Supremacy – While Parliament can amend the Constitution, the judiciary ensures such amendments do not dilute democratic principles.
  • Example: Striking down the 99^th Constitutional Amendment (NJAC case, 2015).
• Ensuring Federal Structure: Courts review amendments affecting the Centre-State relationship.
  • Example: State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) upheld state rights.
• Interpreting Ambiguous Provisions – Judiciary clarifies vague amendment provisions to uphold constitutional intent.
  • Example: SR Bommai Case (1994) on federalism.

How Judicial Intervention Ensures Stability:

• Prevents Authoritarian Amendments: The 39^th Amendment (Indira Gandhi Case, 1975), which placed election disputes beyond judicial review, was struck down, ensuring electoral accountability.
• Maintains Constitutional Supremacy: The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) ruled that Parliament cannot amend the Basic Structure, protecting democracy, secularism, and federalism.
• Protects Judicial Independence: The 99th Amendment (NJAC Case, 2015) was struck down to preserve the judiciary’s autonomy from executive influence.
• Upholds Reservation Policies: In Jarnail Singh Case (2018), the Supreme Court upheld reservations in promotions for SC/STs but ruled that they must be backed by quantifiable data, ensuring balance between social justice and administrative efficiency.
• Ensures Fair Economic Policies: The 1st Amendment (1951) and recent GST-related cases have been reviewed to prevent arbitrary tax impositions while upholding economic governance.

How Judicial Intervention Affects Flexibility:

• Judicial Activism vs. Parliamentary Supremacy: In Keshavananda Bharati (1973), where the Supreme Court overturned a constitutional amendment (24th) by declaring that Parliament cannot alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
• Delayed Reforms: The M. Nagaraj Case (2006) required the government to show quantifiable data for SC/ST reservation in promotions, delaying policy implementation.
• Striking Down Progressive Economic Policies: The recent Electoral Bonds judgment (2024) ruled that the scheme violated transparency and fairness in elections, though some argued that it helped regulate corporate funding.

Conclusion

Judicial review has acted as a necessary check on arbitrary amendments while preserving constitutional stability. However, occasional judicial overreach raises concerns about parliamentary supremacy. A harmonious balance between legislative intent and judicial oversight is key to ensuring constitutional integrity and democratic progress.