Is Amendment a Law under the Indian Constitution?

The Indian Constitution provides a comprehensive framework of laws and regulations to govern the country. Within this framework, the process of amending the Constitution holds great significance. However, a crucial question arises: Is an amendment considered a law under the Indian Constitution?

What is an Amendment to the Constitution?

An amendment to the Constitution refers to a formal change or modification made to the existing provisions of the constitution of a country. It is a legal process through which alterations, additions, or deletions are made to the constitutional text. The purpose of an amendment is to update the constitution, address evolving needs and challenges, correct any deficiencies or ambiguities, and reflect the changing aspirations and values of the society.

In the context of the Indian Constitution, Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. According to this article, an amendment can be proposed by either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) and must be passed by a special majority. After the amendment is passed by both houses, it requires the President’s assent to become a part of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provisions and Early Interpretations

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution deals with the doctrine of “law declared by the Supreme Court to be void.” Clause 3 of Article 13 states that any law that violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution shall be deemed void. However, Clause 4 of Article 13 explicitly excludes amendments made under Article 368 from the purview of challenge under Article 13.

The initial interpretations of the Constitution leaned towards treating constitutional amendments as laws, which meant they could be challenged if they violated fundamental rights. In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court held that Article 13 only referred to ordinary laws and not constitutional amendments. Therefore, amendments made under Article 368 were considered valid, regardless of their impact on fundamental rights.

The Golaknath Case and Judicial Activism

The case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) brought a significant shift in the interpretation of Article 13. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 13 encompassed ordinary laws and constitutional amendments. This meant that the Parliament could neither enact laws nor make amendments inconsistent with fundamental rights.

This landmark decision expanded the judiciary’s powers. It established the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any amendment violating fundamental rights would be declared void.

The 24th Amendment Act of 1971

In response to the Golaknath case, the Parliament introduced the 24th Amendment Act in 1971. This amendment clarified that any amendment made under Article 368 would not be considered a law under Article 13. It aimed to restore the Parliament’s power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including those related to fundamental rights, without judicial interference.

Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case proved to be a turning point in understanding constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment Act, thus re-establishing the Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. However, the court introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine” concept to impose limitations on the amending power.

The Basic Structure Doctrine means that while the Parliament has the authority to amend any provision of the Constitution, such amendments cannot violate the basic structure or essential features. The court held that the power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the application of the Basic Structure test.

Current Status

An amendment under the Indian Constitution is not treated as an ordinary law. The interpretation of Article 13 has evolved, starting with a distinction between ordinary laws and constitutional amendments, then embracing the view that amendments are subject to the same scrutiny as laws. 

However, the Kesavananda Bharati case reaffirmed the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, subject to the limitations imposed by the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures the preservation of the core principles and values of the Constitution, safeguarding the rights and liberties of the people. It strikes a delicate balance between the powers of the Parliament and the protection of fundamental rights, contributing to the stability and evolution of India’s constitutional democracy.