Fundamental rights, enshrined in the Indian Constitution, are considered unalterable and non-derogable thereby ensuring their immutability. However, this immutability is subject to the Constitution’s amendment procedure as outlined in Article 368. Amendments to fundamental rights can be made through a special majority vote in both houses of Parliament, followed by ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. This process ensures a balance between the need for constitutional flexibility and the protection of individual liberties. The Supreme Court has held that while fundamental rights cannot be abrogated, their scope and content may be reasonably curtailed through amendments. This allows the Constitution to adapt to societal changes while preserving its core principles.
What is the scope of amendments to Fundamental Rights?
The Indian Constitution, under Article 368, empowers the Parliament to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. However, certain aspects of Fundamental Rights cannot be amended, as they are considered essential for the protection of individual liberty and equality.
Generally, amendments to Fundamental Rights must be in accordance with the following principles:
- They cannot abrogate or take away the essence of Fundamental Rights.
- They cannot be made for any discriminatory or arbitrary purpose.
- They must be in the interest of the general public.
In addition, certain specific Fundamental Rights have additional safeguards against amendment:
- Article 15 (prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth): can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament along with the ratification of half of the state legislatures.
- Article 25 (freedom of religion): can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament.
- Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies): can only be amended by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament and a majority of the total membership of the House.
The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting the scope of amendments to Fundamental Rights. In several landmark cases, the Court has held that amendments to Fundamental Rights must be strictly construed and that any attempt to erode their essential content will be struck down.
Examples of amendments
There have been several amendments to Fundamental Rights over the years:
- The First Amendment (1951) added Articles 31A and 31B to protect certain laws from judicial review.
- The Fourth Amendment (1955) added Article 31C to protect certain land reforms from judicial review.
- The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971) added Article 31D to protect nationalization of banks and other financial institutions from judicial review.
- The Forty-second Amendment (1976) amended several Fundamental Rights, including the right to property (Article 31), the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
- The Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) restored many of the Fundamental Rights that had been amended by the Forty-second Amendment.
The following table provides a summary of the amendments to Fundamental Rights:
| Amendment | Year | Key Changes |
|---|---|---|
| First Amendment | 1951 | – Added Articles 31A and 31B to protect certain laws from judicial review. |
| Fourth Amendment | 1955 | – Added Article 31C to protect certain land reforms from judicial review. |
| Twenty-fourth Amendment | 1971 | – Added Article 31D to protect nationalization of banks and other financial institutions from judicial review. |
| Forty-second Amendment | 1976 | – Amended several Fundamental Rights, including the right to property (Article 31), the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). |
| Forty-fourth Amendment | 1978 | – Restored many of the Fundamental Rights that had been amended by the Forty-second Amendment. |
Legality of Amending Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and are the cornerstone of our democratic republic. The legality of amending Fundamental Rights is a complex and evolving issue that has been debated and adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on numerous occasions.
- Article 368 of the Constitution: Article 368 empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, through a special majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of Parliament and a majority of the total membership of each House.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court established the “basic structure doctrine,” which holds that the Parliament cannot amend or abolish the basic structure of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
Limitations on Amending Fundamental Rights
- Cannot Abolish or Abrogate: The Parliament cannot completely abolish or abrogate Fundamental Rights. It can only amend or modify them within the limits prescribed by the basic structure doctrine.
- Cannot Amend Retrospectively: Amendments to Fundamental Rights cannot be made retrospective in nature, meaning they cannot affect actions or events that occurred before the amendment came into force.
Can Fundamental Rights be Amended? A Table
| Legality | Limitations | |
|---|---|---|
| Can Parliament Amend Fundamental Rights? | Yes, through Article 368 with two-thirds majority of Parliament | Cannot abolish or abrogate; cannot amend retrospectively |
| Can Fundamental Rights be Amended Beyond Recognition? | No, due to the basic structure doctrine | – |
Fundamental Rights in India: Amendment and Judicial Review
The Indian Constitution guarantees a set of fundamental rights to its citizens, which aim to protect their basic human freedoms and dignity. These rights include the right to life and personal liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to education, among others.
One important aspect of fundamental rights in India is the question of whether they can be amended by Parliament. The Constitution does allow for amendments to fundamental rights, but it sets certain conditions and limitations on such amendments.
Conditions for Amending Fundamental Rights
- The amendment must be passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of Parliament.
- The amendment cannot take away or abridge the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of India has the power to review and determine whether any amendment to fundamental rights violates the basic structure of the Constitution. This power is known as judicial review.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the basic structure of the Constitution includes certain fundamental principles such as:
- Sovereignty of India
- Democracy
- Secularism
- Rule of law
Any amendment that attempts to change these basic principles may be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Table of Fundamental Rights Amendments
| Amendment | Year | Key Changes |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Amendment | 1951 | Added the right to property as a fundamental right. |
| 4th Amendment | 1955 | Overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shankari Prasad case, which had held that fundamental rights could not be amended. |
| 42nd Amendment | 1976 | Added a number of new fundamental rights, including the right to education and the right to work. Introduced the concept of the “basic structure of the Constitution.” |
| 44th Amendment | 1978 | Restored the right to property as a fundamental right. |
| 51st Amendment | 1984 | Removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights. |
Historical Precedents
The Supreme Court has held that Fundamental Rights are amendable, meaning they can be changed or altered by Parliament.
The first case in which the Supreme Court ruled on the amendability of Fundamental Rights was Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951). In this case, the Court held that while Fundamental Rights are essential, they are not absolute, and Parliament can amend them to achieve important social goals.
The Supreme Court has also held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to destroy or abrogate them. In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the Court held that the Basic Structure of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, cannot be amended.
| Case | Year | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India | 1951 | Fundamental Rights are amendable, but only for important social goals. |
| Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala | 1973 | Parliament cannot amend the Basic Structure of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. |
These cases establish that while Fundamental Rights are amendable, they cannot be destroyed or abrogated by Parliament. Parliament can only amend them to achieve important social goals and cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Well, there you have it, folks! The intricate question of whether fundamental rights are amendable has taken us on a roller coaster ride of legal arguments and historical precedents. While the Constitution has stood the test of time, it’s fascinating to see how different perspectives can shape our understanding of its rigidity.
As you continue to explore this topic, don’t forget to drop by again. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments and insights, so you can stay on top of this ever-evolving debate. Thanks for joining us on this thought-provoking journey!