The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the constitutional balance by checking the arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament, especially in the context of constitutional amendments. This power of judicial review ensures that the essence of the Constitution is preserved and protects citizens' rights against potential legislative overreach.

Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Supreme Court's power to review constitutional amendments was significantly shaped by the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). In this case, the Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that while Parliament has wide-ranging powers to amend the Constitution, these powers are not absolute. Amendments that alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution are invalid. This doctrine serves as a safeguard against arbitrary amendments that could undermine fundamental constitutional principles.

Basic Structure Elements

The Court has identified several elements as part of the basic structure, including:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Protection of fundamental rights

Key Cases Upholding Judicial Review

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Before Kesavananda Bharati, the Golaknath case declared that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, thus asserting the judiciary's role in protecting these rights from legislative changes.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

This case reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine by invalidating clauses of the 42nd Amendment that sought to curtail judicial review powers and extend Parliament's amendment powers. The Court held that limited amending power is a part of the basic structure, emphasizing the necessity of checks and balances.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The Court struck down the 39th Amendment, which placed election disputes involving the Prime Minister and Speaker beyond judicial scrutiny. The Court ruled that adjudication of such disputes is a judicial function, and removing it from judicial review violated the basic structure.

Criticisms and Limitations

Allegations of Judicial Overreach

Critics argue that the judiciary, through the Basic Structure Doctrine, can impede the democratic will as expressed by the Parliament. They contend that this power grants unelected judges the ability to invalidate laws and amendments passed by democratically elected representatives, potentially leading to judicial overreach.

Lack of Clear Definition

The concept of "basic structure" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, leading to subjective interpretations by the judiciary. This ambiguity can result in inconsistency and unpredictability in judicial decisions.

Balance of Powers

While judicial review is essential to prevent arbitrary legislative actions, it is also crucial to ensure that the judiciary does not encroach upon the legitimate functions of the legislature. The balance of power must be maintained to respect the separation of powers and democratic principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's role in checking the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is vital for preserving the fundamental principles and protecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution. While the Basic Structure Doctrine provides a necessary check on arbitrary amendments, it is essential to maintain a balance to prevent judicial overreach. The dynamic interplay between judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty is a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy, ensuring that no single branch becomes omnipotent.