Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is a limited power and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power. In the light of this statement explain whether Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution can destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by expanding its amending power?
Based on 28 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Minerva Mills (1980) struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, holding that limited amending power is a basic feature.
- Self-referential limit: Article 368 cannot be used to enlarge the amending power itself, so the expansion attempt is self-defeating.
- Golaknath (1967) context: Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights, and the 24th Amendment responded to it before Kesavananda.
- Concrete basic structure features such as federalism, secularism, judicial review and judicial independence, linked to why Parliament cannot destroy them.
- Explicit direct answer to the question: Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure even through an expanded amending power.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973) by a 7:6 majority in a 13-judge bench, with its basic structure ratio explained.
Common mistakes
- Describing the basic structure doctrine without answering whether Parliament can destroy it by expanding its amending power.
- Listing amendments (24th, 42nd) and cases without explaining how they connect to the limited-versus-absolute power argument.
- Citing Article 13 loosely, without distinguishing laws from constitutional amendments or noting Article 13(4).
- Ending without a clear conclusion that restates the answer as a firm no with reasoning.
What the better answers did
- Opening with a direct answer, then tracing the timeline from Golaknath to Kesavananda to Minerva Mills.
- Explaining Minerva Mills specifically: which clauses of Article 368 were struck down and why they matter here.
- Naming concrete basic structure features and tying each to the limit on Parliament's power.
- Keeping the argument legal and constitutional, with case names and provisions correctly dated.
Introduction
Start by stating directly that Parliament cannot use Article 368 to expand its power into destruction of the basic structure, then set out the reasoning.
Conclusion
Close by restating that limited power cannot be enlarged into absolute power, citing Minerva Mills as the decisive authority.
Model answer
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, but it is a power to amend, not to destroy. Under the basic structure doctrine, Parliament cannot damage the Constitution's essential features even through an amendment. The answer is therefore no: expanding the amending power cannot authorise destruction of the basic structure, because the power to expand is itself a power that must respect the basic structure.
The limited nature of the power
- Golaknath case (1967) held that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- The 24th Amendment (1971) amended Article 368 to make the amending power express and clarified that Article 13 does not apply to amendments under Article 368.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973, 7:6 in a 13-judge bench) upheld the 24th Amendment but ruled that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure.
Attempt to make the power absolute
- The 42nd Amendment (1976) inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368, seeking to bar judicial review of amendments and to declare Parliament's power unlimited.
- Minerva Mills (1980) struck down these clauses. The Court held that limited amending power is itself a basic feature, so Parliament cannot enlarge it into absolute power.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) applied the same test to constitutional amendments on electoral disputes.
Basic structure as the test
- Features such as federalism, secularism, judicial review and separation of powers cannot be destroyed.
- Article 13(2) reflects the same principle for laws, and courts apply the basic structure test to amendments.
- I.R. Coelho (2007) held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge if they damage the basic structure.
Thus Parliament can amend any provision, but it cannot use Article 368 to expand its power and destroy the basic structure. Limited power cannot become absolute power.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start UPSC Mains answer evaluation with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerAsked in UPSC Mains 2019 GS Paper 2 (Q12). See all 2019 GS Paper 2 questions
More GS Paper 2 questions
- Lateral entry into civil services is seen as a reformative step, yet it continues to attract criticism and controversy. Discuss.
- While accountability often necessitates documentation, an overemphasis on bureaucratic procedures and excessive paperwork can inadvertently silence the very voices that public policy intends to empower, particularly at the grassroots. Examine the above statement with suitable illustrations.
- The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially. Comment.
- Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Menstrual Health and Hygiene.
- Despite recent steps towards inducting women into combat roles, their participation remains low. Examine the key challenges impeding the greater inclusion of women in the Indian armed forces. Also, suggest suitable measures to enhance their participation.
- As NITI Aayog completes 10 years of its establishment, critically examine its role in the planning and development paradigm of governance in India.