This comprehensive analysis explores the amendability of Fundamental Rights and the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine under Article 368, a critical topic for students and UPSC aspirants. Understanding how the Supreme Court balanced Parliamentary power with constitutional sanctity from to the present is essential for mastering Indian Polity. In simple words, this chapter explains whether Parliament can change the Fundamental Rights of citizens, and if yes, how far it can go before the Supreme Court stops it.
🎯 In this chapter, you will understand:
- Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
- How landmark cases such as Shankari Prasad, Golak Nath, and Kesavananda Bharati changed constitutional law.
- Why the Basic Structure Doctrine protects the core identity of the Indian Constitution.
- The present position: Parliament may amend Fundamental Rights, but cannot damage the basic structure.
💡 Why this topic matters: This topic explains the balance between democracy and constitutional protection. Parliament represents the will of the people and needs power to bring social reforms, while Fundamental Rights protect every citizen from unfair state action. The Supreme Court developed the Basic Structure Doctrine to ensure that neither side becomes too powerful.
🧠 Core Idea: Parliament can amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot use its amending power to destroy the essential features—or basic structure—of the Constitution.
Amendability of Fundamental Rights under Article 368: A Constitutional Journey
The history of Constitutional Amendments in India is a dramatic story of changing interpretations, political pressure, and judicial wisdom. After Independence, India needed major social and economic reforms, especially land reforms. However, some of these reforms affected the property rights of landlords and other owners, which were protected as Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution. This created a serious question: can Parliament change or reduce Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment?
At first, the Supreme Court allowed Parliament wide powers to amend the Constitution. Later, the Court became more protective of Fundamental Rights. Finally, in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case, the Court created a permanent safeguard called the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine does not stop all amendments; instead, it prevents Parliament from changing the soul or core identity of the Constitution.
The legal tug-of-war between the Judiciary and Parliament concerns the sanctity of Part III of the Constitution. Part III contains the Fundamental Rights, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, protection of life and personal liberty, and freedom of religion. These rights are important because they protect individuals from the misuse of state power. Parliament, on the other hand, has the responsibility to make laws and amend the Constitution to meet the changing needs of society.
- (i) The conflict centres on whether Article 368 can override the protections of Article 13.
- (ii) Early rulings prioritised legislative intent to facilitate social reform.
- (iii) The evolution reached its highest point with the birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Historical Conflict: From Shankari Prasad to Golak Nath
A chronological journey through the landmark cases that redefined the limits of Parliamentary amending power. To understand this conflict, imagine two important forces: Parliament wants the freedom to amend the Constitution for social change, while the judiciary wants to ensure that basic rights are not taken away unfairly. The Supreme Court’s view changed over time as it examined the exact wording of Articles 13 and 368.
The Early Era: Shankari Prasad Case ()
In the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Fundamental Rights were immune from constitutional amendments. In the Shankari Prasad case, the Court upheld the view that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Court gave a technical explanation: the word “law” in Article 13 meant only ordinary laws made by Parliament, not constitutional amendments made under its constituent power.
This decision was important because it allowed early land reform laws to continue. Many such laws aimed to redistribute land and reduce the power of large landowners. If Fundamental Rights could never be amended, some of these reforms could have been blocked. Therefore, the Court’s decision supported Parliament’s ability to bring social reforms.
- (i) Upheld Parliament’s supremacy in amending any part of the Constitution.
- (ii) Distinguished between legislative power and constituent power.
- (iii) Allowed early land reform laws to proceed despite concerns about property rights.
The Great Reversal: Golak Nath Case ()
The position changed sharply in , when an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided the Golak Nath case. The Court held that Fundamental Rights have a “transcendental and immutable” status. In simple language, this means that Fundamental Rights are so important that Parliament should not be able to reduce or remove them through a constitutional amendment.
The Court now said that a Constitutional Amendment is also a “law” under Article 13. Therefore, if an amendment violated a Fundamental Right, it could be declared void. This decision reversed the earlier approach seen in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. It also created a legal deadlock because Parliament felt that its power to amend the Constitution had been unnecessarily restricted.
- (i) Reversed the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh precedents.
- (ii) Restricted Article 368 by subjecting it to the mandate of Article 13(2).
- (iii) Created a legal deadlock between the government and the judiciary.
The Legislative Pushback and the 24th Amendment
After the Golak Nath judgment, Parliament responded by changing the Constitution itself. The government believed that Parliament must retain the authority to amend Fundamental Rights, especially to carry out land reforms and other welfare measures. This led to the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, which tried to restore and clarify Parliament’s amending power.
Restoring Power: The 24th Amendment Act ()
To bypass the Golak Nath ruling, Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act in . This Act specifically amended Article 13 and Article 368. It declared that Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any Fundamental Right through a constitutional amendment. It also clarified that such amendments would not be considered “law” under Article 13, thereby protecting them from being struck down on that ground.
The amendment also made it compulsory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill. Earlier, there was some uncertainty about whether the President could withhold assent. By making assent obligatory, the 24th Amendment strengthened the procedure for constitutional amendments and reasserted Parliament’s authority.
- (i) Made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill.
- (ii) Explicitly stated that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to amendments made under Article 368.
- (iii) Reasserted legislative dominance over Fundamental Rights.
The Kesavananda Bharati Landmark and the Basic Structure
The Kesavananda Bharati case is the most important turning point in Indian constitutional history. It did not completely reject Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Instead, it introduced a careful and permanent limit: Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it cannot change or destroy its basic structure. This idea protects the Constitution from being rewritten in a way that removes democracy, judicial independence, secularism, or the rule of law.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure ()
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act. It agreed that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. However, the Court added a historic condition: Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. This means that while individual rights may be modified for public purposes, the core identity of the Constitution must remain intact.
The Court’s decision shifted attention from the exact words of an amendment to its actual effect on the constitutional framework. For example, an amendment may look legally valid on paper, but if it removes judicial review, destroys democracy, or ends the separation of powers, it may violate the basic structure. The judgment was delivered on , and this date later became important for deciding which amendments would be tested under the doctrine. [227][228]
- (i) Settled the extent of Article 368 as being “limited” rather than “absolute.”
- (ii) Established as the cutoff date for the doctrine’s application.
- (iii) Shifted focus from the text of the amendment to its impact on the constitutional framework.
Case Application: Indira Nehru Gandhi Case ()
The Basic Structure Doctrine was soon used in a real political situation. In the Indira Nehru Gandhi case, the Supreme Court examined a provision of the 39th Amendment Act. That provision tried to keep election disputes involving the Prime Minister outside the scope of judicial review. The Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure, so Parliament could not remove the courts’ power to examine such disputes.
- (i) The doctrine was used to strike down a provision of the 39th Amendment Act.
- (ii) The provision had excluded election disputes of the Prime Minister from judicial review.
- (iii) The Court ruled that judicial review is a part of the Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills and the Finality of Judicial Review
Even after Kesavananda Bharati, attempts were made to give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court again responded firmly in the Minerva Mills case. This case made it clear that the power to amend the Constitution is itself limited. Parliament cannot use a limited amending power to make that same power unlimited.
The 42nd Amendment and Minerva Mills Case ()
The 42nd Amendment, often called the “Mini-Constitution,” tried to give Parliament unlimited constituent power and barred courts from questioning constitutional amendments. In the Minerva Mills judgment, the Supreme Court invalidated these provisions. The Court held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution. Therefore, Parliament cannot remove the very limit that keeps its power under control.
The judgment also reaffirmed the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Fundamental Rights protect individual liberty, while Directive Principles guide the state toward social and economic welfare. The Court said that neither should be completely destroyed in the name of the other.
- (i) Reaffirmed the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- (ii) Struck down clauses that excluded judicial review.
- (iii) Waman Rao Case (): Reaffirmed that the doctrine applies to all amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati date.
Recognized Elements of the Basic Structure
The Supreme Court has never given one final and complete list of basic features. Instead, different judgments have identified important principles that form the unchangeable foundation of the Indian Constitution. These features protect India’s democratic, secular, and federal character and ensure that no government can easily change the country’s constitutional identity.
List of Basic Features Identified by the Court
Although the list is not exhaustive, the following features have been recognised in various judgments. They work together to protect citizens, maintain constitutional balance, and prevent arbitrary changes to the nation’s foundational framework.
- (i) Supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
- (ii) Sovereign, democratic and republican nature of the Indian polity.
- (iii) Secular character and separation of powers among the three organs of government.
- (iv) Federal character and the unity and integrity of the nation.
- (v) Judicial review and independence of the Judiciary.
- (vi) Free and fair elections as the foundation of democracy.
- (vii) Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- (viii) Effective access to justice and individual dignity.
Evolution via Landmark Cases
Several later cases strengthened and clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine. These cases show that the doctrine is not limited to one issue; it applies to secularism, federalism, judicial powers, equality, and even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule.
- S.R. Bommai Case (): Confirmed secularism and federalism as basic features.
- L. Chandra Kumar Case (): Confirmed the powers of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 as basic features.
- I.R. Coelho Case (): Ruled that even laws in the Ninth Schedule are open to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
- Indra Sawhney Case (): Established the principle of equality as part of the core constitutional structure.
Summary of the Current Position and Student Relevance
Today, the current position is clear: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, provided the amendment does not damage the Basic Structure. This balance allows the Constitution to remain a living document that can adapt to new social needs, while also protecting citizens’ rights from political misuse. For students, the most important point is to remember the sequence of cases and the central idea that Article 368 gives Parliament amending power, but not unlimited power.
⚡ Quick Revision Capsule: Amendability of Fundamental Rights
Use this table to quickly revise the major cases, years, and constitutional principles before an examination.
| Case / Amendment | Year | Main Constitutional Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad Case | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. | |
| Golak Nath Case | Parliament cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. | |
| 24th Amendment Act | Restored Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. | |
| Kesavananda Bharati Case | Parliament cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure. | |
| Minerva Mills Case | Limited amending power and judicial review are basic features. | |
| Waman Rao Case | Applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to amendments after Kesavananda Bharati. |
📝 Summary
From to the present, Indian constitutional law has moved from giving Parliament wide amending power to placing a strong judicial limit on that power. In Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court allowed Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. In Golak Nath, it held that such amendments could not violate Fundamental Rights. Parliament then passed the 24th Amendment in to restore its authority. Finally, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power but created the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution’s essential identity remains protected.
🚀 Quick Revision Points
Essential facts to review before examinations:
- (i) Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
- (ii) Shankari Prasad upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- (iii) Golak Nath held that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or taken away by constitutional amendment.
- (iv) Kesavananda Bharati established the Basic Structure Doctrine on .
- (v) Minerva Mills held that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features.
- (vi) Waman Rao clarified that the doctrine applies to amendments after Kesavananda Bharati.
- 💡 Exam Tip: Remember the simple sequence: Shankari Prasad allowed amendments, Golak Nath restricted them, the 24th Amendment restored Parliament’s power, and Kesavananda Bharati finally limited that power through the Basic Structure Doctrine.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
A1: Yes. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, but the amendment cannot violate or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.Q2: What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A2: The Basic Structure Doctrine says that Parliament’s amending power is not unlimited. It cannot change or remove the essential features of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, judicial review, and the rule of law.Q3: Which case established the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A3: The doctrine was established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, decided on . The Supreme Court held that Article 368 allows amendment but does not permit destruction of the Constitution’s basic structure.
