Politics of Constitutional Amendments in India
Constitution is the supreme law of land of any country and so it is of India. The constitution of India is the governing and guiding law for all subsequent laws, which are to be framed by the legislature. Therefore, the draftsman of the Indian Constitution took inspirations from constitutions of countries across the world, in order to avoid any hindrance to the democracy and peaceful functioning of the three organs viz. legislature, executive and judiciary.
Table of Contents:
- Need of Constitutional Amendment
- Role of Article 368 in Indian Constitution
- Problems with frequent constitutional amendments
- Judiciary vis-à-vis Constitutional amendments
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
- Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala
- After effects of Supreme Court rulings
- Conclusion
Need of Constitutional Amendment
However, with democracy being a dynamic concept, which is evolving and changing itself with time and needs of the society, constitution is supposed to be on the same path, as it is the guiding framework, which must be mold in such a way to be beneficial for the citizens of a country. Sometimes under the impact of new powerful social and economic forces, the pattern of government will require major changes.
Role of Article 368 in Indian Constitution
Thus, the draftsman of the constitution deemed it fit to provide for Article 368 in the Indian Constitution, which dealt with the procedure of amendment, to enable legislature to amend the constitution as and when need arises. Thus, under Article 368, Constitution can neither be rigid not flexible but is partly rigid and partly flexible.
Under Article 368 of the constitution, provisions of constitution can be amended either by simple majority, which is provided by II Schedule, or by special majority, which is provided by VII Schedule.
Problems with frequent constitutional amendments
The founding fathers of the constitution at the time did not realize that the present political environment would try to mold the Articles of constitution as per their own need and use. The major problem for this situation is granting of more rights to the people without balancing them with duties. The result, today more and more political players are interested in fulfilling their own aspirations rather than fulfilling aspirations of the people at large. This criticism can be debated; however, there lies element of truth in that.
Moreover, the reason for such frequent amendments in the constitution is dominance of one party at both the Center and the State Government. With such frequent amendments taking place at the hands of the parliament, the ruling party will be able to mold the framework of the constitution to its own benefit, mend the laws, which might be harmful for the citizens.
Yet, on close examination of the constitutional amendments, it can be said that while not all amendments are result of political framework, some amendments are result of compelling circumstances while other are natural product of eventual evolution.
Judiciary vis-à-vis Constitutional amendments
The first case pertaining to amendment of fundamental rights by parliament under Article 368 came before Supreme court in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, wherein it was held that constitutional amendments will be held valid even when they take away or abridges fundamental rights.
Another case came before Supreme Court titled as Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which challenged the constitutional validity of 17th amendment. Supreme Court reaffirmed the view taken by it in the Shankari Prasad’s case and held that constitutional amendments can take away fundamental rights.
However, later in the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court overturned the decision of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Kumar’s case and held that parliament had no power from the date of this decision to amend Part III of the Constitution, i.e. to take away or abridge the Fundamental rights.
Supreme Court in its decision expressed its concern stating that “if the courts were to hold that the Parliament had power to take away fundamental rights, a time might come when these rights are completely eroded”.
However, in the landmark judgment of Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, Supreme Court overruled the decision of Golaknath’s case and held that court cannot take away the power of parliament to amend the fundamental rights under Article 368 of the constitution. However, Supreme Court clarified that parliament does not have power to amend the basic structure of the constitution.
After effects of Supreme Court rulings
Supreme Court in Golaknath’s case clarified its view, holding that if parliament was to allowed amending the fundamental rights, soon all fundamental rights would be abolished, which was right at the time observing how the majority Government was abridging the fundamental rights, thereby depriving citizens of their basic rights.
Later on, Golaknath’s ruling was overturned, thereby Supreme Court reaffirming the status of parliament to amend the rights, however, depriving them of the right to amend the basic structure. Observing the constitution and fundamental rights provided therein, such rights formed the part of basic structure of the constitution. Thus, it goes on to show that Supreme Court always had the concern that allowing parliament to amend fundamental rights as and when it deemed fit would be a threat to democracy and basic rights of the citizen.
Today, parliament does not have the power to alter or amend the fundamental rights thus, cannot deprive citizens of their basic human rights. However, seeing the trend of amending the fundamental rights at the time of Indra Gandhi’s government, it would not be hard to say that imposing emergency and depriving the citizens of their fundamental rights went on to show how political influence in constitutional amendments is proven to be a threat to democracy.
CONCLUSION
The amendment process was provided in the constitution to cope up with the rapid changes in the society, thereby allowing parliament to adapt itself to changing circumstances. However, seeing the trend of Government’s using such feature to its own benefit, it was necessary for Supreme Court to step in and limit the power of the parliament which it did. Thus, political influence in constitutional amendments can never be beneficial for democracy and the citizens.