Answer:

Though the Constitution vested the power to amend the Constitution or any of its part (Article 368) to the Parliament, which comprises of the representatives of the people, the court in a landmark judgment adjudged that anything which contravenes the basic structure of the constitution would be declare null and void thereby severely curtailing the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Article 368, on a plain reading did not contain any limitation on the power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. In the Golak Nath Case, Supreme Court was of the opinion that it should be read along with Article 13 of the Constitution but it changed its decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.

In Kesavananda Bharati Case, the Judiciary tried to deal with the question that “was the power of the Parliament to amend the constitution unlimited?” Dealing with this question, it came out with the basic structure doctrine through which it was held that Parliament could amend any part of the constitution so along as it did not alter or amend the basic structure of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has not explicitly mentioned what constitutes the ‘basic structure’, further casting a doubt whether any legislation if challenged will pass the judicial scrutiny or not.

But it could be deciphered from subsequent judgments that Preamble, Federalism, Fundamental Rights, Secularism etc. are some of its basic components.

As one commentator has opined – the reality of constitutionalism has been that the legislature and the judiciary are likely to remain Competitors when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. It is by no means settled who has the final word. The parliament can pass any legislation and the court can determine its constitutionality, the Parliament could try to circumvent the court by amending the constitution, the court can pronounce Parliament has limited powers and so on.

There are examples of enactments, which got nullified for violating the basic structure while others like the abolition of Right to property by 44th AA passed the judicial scrutiny.

In conclusion, it can be said that the decline of the Parliament in relation to other competing institution of government is most empathetically felt on the Parliament’s loss to the judiciary as the locus of the Constituent Power.