Tejas Pratap Singh, LL.M, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
“A hundred years scarce serve to form a state; an hour may lay it in the dust.” - Byron
ABSTRACT
The framers of Indian Constitution came up with a written Constitution in order to ensure that there was some sort of rigidity in the Constitution. Also, the power to amend was given to the Parliament under Article 368 in order to overcome the difficulties which may encounter in future in the working of the Constitution. However, the extent of flexibility embraced by a constitution has to be balanced by a need to preserve its normative character as a higher law that restrains temporary parliamentary majorities of the nation. Article 368 of the Constitution does not prescribe any express limitation upon the parliament’s amending power, however the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) declared that Article 368 did not enable parliament to alter the ‘Basic Structure or Framework’ of the Constitution. Vigorously debated since its inception, the doctrine continues to be a central feature of recent institutional contests over Constitutional identity and change. This paper examines the development and the scope of the doctrine of basic structure as a Constitutional safeguard and its reflection in the jurisprudence of some other countries.
Keywords: Amendment, Basic Structure, Constitution, Parliament, Supreme Court
