“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 ?
Approach · directive: “explain whether”
What it asks · Explain, through the case law from Golaknath to Minerva Mills and later, why Article 368 lets Parliament amend widely but not destroy the basic structure, even by enlarging its own amending power.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Explain the nature and limits of Parliament's amending power under Article 368 through the case law from Golaknath to Minerva Mills
- Explain whether Parliament can destroy the basic structure by expanding its own amending power: the later cases and the debate
Open with · The statement echoes the Supreme Court's holding in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which struck down the clauses the 42nd Amendment added to Article 368.
Cover
- Article 368: Parliament may amend by addition, variation or repeal as a constituent power, not ordinary legislative power; the 24th Amendment (1971) made this explicit.
- Golaknath (1967) put fundamental rights beyond amendment; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) overruled it by 7:6: Parliament may amend any provision but not alter the basic structure.
- Raj Narain (1975) applied the doctrine to Article 329A(4); the 42nd Amendment (1976) added clauses (4)–(5) to Article 368, claiming unlimited amending power.
- Minerva Mills (1980) struck them down: limited power cannot become absolute; judicial review and the balance between Parts III and IV are basic features.
- Later: Waman Rao (1981) set the 24 April 1973 cut-off; Coelho (2007) opened Ninth Schedule laws to review; NJAC (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment.
- Answer: Parliament may amend even important features but cannot destroy the Constitution's identity (democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review) by enlarging its own power.
- Debate: critics call the doctrine judicial supremacy without textual basis; supporters see a safeguard against majoritarian abuse, applied case by case.
Close with · Parliament's power is wide but limited by the Constitution's own identity; the basic-structure doctrine keeps amendments faithful to constitutional values without freezing the text.
Add value (verified)
- Article 368(1) frames the amending power as a constituent power exercisable by addition, variation or repeal of any provision, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the article. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 368(1) - Legislative Department ↗“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2019, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 319 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
The statement is the core of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), in which the Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976), which had declared Parliament's amending power unlimited and beyond judicial review.
A limited constituent power
- Article 368(1) lets Parliament, in its constituent power, amend ‘by way of addition, variation or repeal’ any provision; the 24th Amendment (1971) made this explicit after Golaknath (1967) had placed fundamental rights beyond amendment.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973), by 7:6, overruled Golaknath but held that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution's basic structure: the power to amend is not the power to abrogate.
- Raj Narain (1975) applied the doctrine to strike down Article 329A(4), which had placed the Prime Minister's election beyond the courts.
Can Parliament enlarge its own power?
- The 42nd Amendment attempted exactly that; Minerva Mills answered that an amendment removing all limits on the amending power is itself an attack on the basic structure, since a limited power cannot be used to make itself absolute.
- Judicial review and the balance between Parts III and IV were held to be basic features, so Parliament cannot immunise its amendments from the courts.
- Waman Rao (1981) fixed 24 April 1973 as the cut-off for testing Ninth Schedule laws; I.R. Coelho (2007) held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after that date remain open to review; the NJAC judgment (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment for undermining judicial independence.
The debate
- Critics call the doctrine judicial supremacy without a textual basis and note that basic features are identified case by case.
- Supporters see it as the guardian of democracy, secularism, federalism and judicial review against transient majorities.
Parliament may amend any provision, even fundamental rights, but it cannot use Article 368 to destroy the Constitution's identity or to free itself from that limit: the amending power is wide, but it is not sovereign.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.