This Article is written by Md. Arif Imam & this article disscuss the Meaning of ‘Law’ under Article 13 | Article 13 and Power of Amendment under Article 368.
Introduction
In the Indian Constitution, Article 13 and Article 368 play a big role. Article 13 is like a protector of our basic rights, making sure laws don’t go against what the Constitution promises. It lets the courts review laws to ensure they follow the Constitution. Understanding the word ‘law’ in Article 13 is crucial because it sets the rules for what laws can and cannot do. On the other hand, Article 368 is all about changing the Constitution, giving Parliament the power to make amendments. Even though it seems like a lot of power, the relationship between Articles 13 and 368 is delicate. To really get how our legal system works, we need to know how these articles work together. This is vital to see how we can safeguard our rights while still allowing necessary changes. So, let’s dive into the core of these articles, making sense of their importance and decoding the Constitution’s language in a way that’s easy to understand.
Meaning of Law under Art 13
Article 13 within the Indian Constitution acts as a crucial guardian, safeguarding our fundamental rights. Its understanding of “law” forms the cornerstone of this protection, akin to comprehending the rules that govern a game. Much like a referee ensuring fairness and adherence to rules in a game, Article 13 oversees the regulations set by the government—acts and regulations that dictate societal behaviour and business conduct.
The beauty of Article 13 lies in its role as a vigilant referee. It scrutinizes these rules, ensuring they do not breach the commitments the Constitution makes to us, especially concerning our fundamental rights. Any law that infringes upon or jeopardizes these basic rights finds itself at odds with Article 13’s mandate it’s akin to having a reliable friend who stands up for your rights when someone attempts to bend or break the rules unfairly.
Moreover, Article 13 isn’t solely concerned with the current rulebook; it peers into the future, stipulating that even forthcoming regulations must align with the fair and just principles enshrined in the Constitution. This provision ensures that the game stays fair not just in the present but for generations to come. In simpler terms, Article 13, with its perspective on “law,” embodies the responsible referee in our societal game, ensuring that the rules (laws) do not undermine the enjoyment and equity promised by the Constitution. It’s the Constitution’s proclamation: “Everyone can participate, and no one can modify the rules in a manner that detracts from the pleasure of participation or harms anyone.”
Article 13 and Its Relevance
Article 13 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, wielding important influence over the protection of our fundamental rights. It operates as a shield, ensuring that our rights remain intact and unharmed by laws that might attempt to infringe upon them. The language of Article 13 is akin to a safeguard, creating a barrier against laws that go against the promises and principles enshrined in the Constitution. When Article 13 refers to ‘law,’ it encompasses not just existing laws but also any future legislation that may come into effect. The overarching intention of Article 13 is crystal clear that it aims to guarantee that no law can undermine or curtail the fundamental rights bestowed upon the citizens. It acts as a safety mechanism, reinforcing the commitments laid out in the Constitution. Moving into the scope of the term ‘law’ within Article 13, it becomes apparent that its purview is broad and comprehensive. It covers a wide array of rules and regulations set forth by the government that binds the populace. The critical aspect is that any law inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution is rendered invalid. The foresight behind Article 13 is to establish a dynamic mechanism that can adapt to evolving circumstances, ensuring that the fundamental rights endure and remain resilient against the evolving legal landscape.
Shifting our focus to the concept of judicial review within the framework of Article 13, we encounter an important element in the constitutional framework. Judicial review is analogous to having a referee in a game, ensuring that the rules are followed and justice is maintained. In the Indian context, the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, assumes the role of this referee. Its primary responsibility is to assess the compatibility of laws with the constitutional framework. If a law transgresses the established boundaries, the judiciary can exercise its authority to declare it ‘ultra vires’ – beyond the legal scope or authority. This process of judicial review acts as a safeguard, preventing any overreach by legislative bodies that could compromise our fundamental rights. The judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights is paramount. It functions as a vigilant guardian, ensuring that no law oversteps the prescribed limits and encroaches upon the rights promised to the citizens. The synergy between Article 13, which delineates the boundaries of ‘law,’ and the judiciary, tasked with reviewing and assessing the constitutionality of laws, establishes a robust framework. This framework guarantees that our fundamental rights remain unassailable, fortified by the vigilant scrutiny of the judiciary. In essence, Article 13 and judicial review constitute a symbiotic relationship that upholds the sanctity of the Constitution and secures the liberties of the citizens.
Power of Amendment under Article 368
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution stands as a crucial pillar, conferring upon Parliament the authority to amend the nation’s foundational legal document. This constitutional provision essentially acts as a gateway, enabling Parliament to make alterations, additions, or variations to the Constitution as deemed necessary. However, the expansive powers granted by Article 368 are not without limitations, and the contours of this authority have been shaped by a complex interplay of historical developments and judicial scrutiny. Understanding the historical background of constitutional amendments in India is essential to appreciate the evolution of Article 368. In the aftermath of gaining independence, the nation found itself in a state of flux, requiring a legal framework capable of adapting to the evolving needs of a nascent democracy. The early days of constitutional amendments were marked by cases like Shankari Prasad[1]and Sajjan Singh[2], where the judiciary seemed to endorse a broad scope for parliamentary amendments. These cases laid the groundwork for the understanding that the Constitution could be amended to accommodate changing circumstances. A significant shift occurred in the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab[3], which marked a departure from the previous judicial stance. Golaknath questioned the extent of Parliament’s power, especially concerning amendments to fundamental rights. This case initiated a critical phase in constitutional interpretation, raising fundamental questions about the limitations on the amendment process. The judiciary, in Golaknath, signaled a more restrictive view, emphasizing the need to safeguard certain core principles enshrined in the Constitution. The trajectory of judicial scrutiny, as witnessed in cases like Golaknath, set the stage for subsequent judgments that further refined the understanding and application of Article 368. This legal journey highlighted the delicate balance between empowering Parliament to adapt to changing circumstances and preserving the foundational values embedded in the Constitution. It underscored the nuanced interplay between the authority to amend and the imperative to protect the core principles that define the constitutional identity of India. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution represents not only a grant of power to Parliament but also a responsibility to exercise that power judiciously. The historical evolution and judicial scrutiny surrounding this constitutional provision reflect the intricate dynamics of constitutional governance in India. As the nation progresses, the delicate balance between the need for adaptation and the preservation of constitutional essence remains a defining feature of the constitution
Basic Structure Doctrine
The concept of the basic structure of the Constitution is a cornerstone in the realm of constitutional law in India. It serves as a protective shield for the foundational principles that form the bedrock of the nation’s supreme legal document. The genesis of the basic structure doctrine can be traced back to the watershed moment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[4], a landmark case that forever altered the landscape of constitutional interpretation. In this case, the Supreme Court grappled with the question of the extent to which Parliament could exercise its powers of amendment under Article 368 without jeopardizing the essence of the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine imposes crucial limitations on the powers of parliamentary amendments. It recognizes certain elements of the Constitution as immutable, forming the nucleus around which the constitutional framework revolves. These elements, regarded as the basic structure, are deemed beyond the reach of parliamentary alterations.
The significance of this doctrine becomes particularly evident when examining subsequent amendments, such as the infamous 42nd Amendment. The 42nd Amendment, enacted in the backdrop of political turmoil, sought to assert the supremacy of Parliament by amending Article 368. This amendment aimed to dilute the constraints imposed by the basic structure doctrine, intending to grant an unbridled amending authority to Parliament. However, the judiciary, in its wisdom, intervened to safeguard the sanctity of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India[5], declared certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional, reinforcing the inviolability of the basic structure. The basic structure doctrine, therefore, emerges as a bulwark against arbitrary and capricious amendments that may undermine the very essence of the Constitution. It encapsulates the spirit of constitutionalism, ensuring that the constitutional identity of India remains resilient in the face of changing political landscapes. The judiciary, by upholding the basic structure doctrine, underscores the commitment to preserving the democratic, secular, and republican character of the Constitution. In essence, the basic structure doctrine is not merely a legal principle; it is a testament to the enduring values that define the Indian Constitution. It reflects a constitutional philosophy that transcends the transient dynamics of politics, reminding the nation that certain principles are sacrosanct. As India continues its journey as a vibrant democracy, the basic structure doctrine stands as a sentinel, guarding against any attempts to alter the foundational ethos that shapes the constitutional tapestry of the country.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the intricate dance between Article 13, Article 368, and the Basic Structure Doctrine orchestrates the symphony of India’s constitutional governance. Article 13 emerges as the vigilant guardian of our fundamental rights, a sentinel ensuring that laws align with the constitutional promises. Its broad scope, encompassing not just existing laws but anticipating those in the future, underscores its dynamic role in adapting to the evolving legal landscape. The concept of ‘law’ within Article 13 becomes a compass guiding the nation towards a harmonious coexistence of legislation and constitutional values. Concurrently, Article 368, the powerhouse of amendments, grants Parliament the authority to mold the Constitution as needed. However, this power is not absolute, and the historical evolution of amendments, from the early days marked by cases like Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh to the pivotal shift in Golaknath, showcases the delicate balance between adaptability and preservation of core principles. The Basic Structure Doctrine, born out of the Kesavananda Bharati case, stands as the guardian of constitutional sanctity. It draws a line in the constitutional sand, declaring certain elements as inviolable, immune to the winds of political change. The judiciary’s role in upholding this doctrine, evident in cases like Minerva Mills, reinforces the enduring values that define India’s constitutional identity. As India traverses its democratic journey, these constitutional elements collectively serve as a beacon, ensuring that the essence of the Constitution remains unaltered. They reflect not just legal principles but enduring values that transcend the transient dynamics of politics. The constitutional mechanism given by Article 13, Article 368, and the Basic Structure Doctrine stands resilient, a testament to the unwavering commitment to democracy, secularism, and republicanism. In embracing the simplicity of these constitutional principles lies the strength and continuity of India’s democratic ethos.
