Power of parliament to amend the constitution

The power of parliament to amend the constitution depends on the specific legal framework and constitutional provisions of a country. In some countries, parliament has the authority to amend the constitution, while in others, the constitution can only be amended through special procedures, such as a referendum or a constitutional convention.

In parliamentary systems, where the constitution is not entrenched or supreme, parliament generally has the power to amend the constitution through the regular legislative process. This means that constitutional amendments can be proposed, debated, and voted upon by the members of parliament, and if they receive the necessary majority or supermajority, they can be enacted into law.

However, in countries with a rigid or entrenched constitution, the process of amending the constitution is usually more rigorous and requires a higher threshold. This often involves a special procedure that is distinct from the regular legislative process. It may require the amendment to be passed by a specific majority of members of parliament or by a higher majority threshold, such as a two-thirds or three-fourths majority. Additionally, some constitutional amendments may also require the approval of other institutions, such as a second chamber or a constitutional court.

It’s important to note that the specific procedures and requirements for amending the constitution can vary significantly from country to country. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the constitutional provisions of the specific country in question to understand the exact power of parliament to amend the constitution.

Introduction

The power of Parliament to amend the constitution refers to the authority granted to the legislative body of a country to make changes or modifications to the fundamental law of the land. The constitution serves as the supreme legal document that sets out the framework of government, establishes the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and defines the structure and powers of the state.

In many democratic countries, including India, the United States, and Australia, the constitution is not considered a static document but is designed to be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances. Recognizing the need for adjustments and improvements over time, the power to amend the constitution is vested in the Parliament or legislative body.

The process of amending a constitution typically involves a specific procedure that is more rigorous than the ordinary legislative process. This additional level of stringency reflects the significance and enduring nature of constitutional provisions. The intention is to ensure that any changes made to the constitution are thoroughly considered, debated, and agreed upon by a broad consensus.

The exact procedure for amending the constitution varies from country to country but generally involves the following key elements:

  1. Proposal: A constitutional amendment is usually initiated by a proposal put forth by a member or members of Parliament. The proposal may address specific provisions or aspects of the constitution that require modification.
  2. Legislative Process: The proposed amendment goes through a formal legislative process, which may include readings, debates, and votes in Parliament. The process may involve both houses of Parliament, such as the House of Representatives and the Senate, depending on the country’s legislative structure.
  3. Majority Requirement: Constitutional amendments often require a special majority for approval. This majority is typically higher than a simple majority to ensure a broad consensus on the proposed changes. For example, a two-thirds majority or a three-fifths majority may be required.
  4. Public Input: In some cases, the process of amending the constitution may involve seeking public input or conducting a referendum to gauge popular opinion on the proposed changes. This can add an additional layer of democratic legitimacy to the amendment process.
  5. Ratification: Once the proposed amendment is passed by the Parliament, it may require formal ratification by a designated authority, such as the President or a constitutional court. The purpose of ratification is to ensure the validity and legality of the amendment before it becomes part of the constitution.

It is important to note that while Parliament holds the power to amend the constitution, there are often limitations on this power. Certain provisions of the constitution may be deemed unamendable or require additional procedures, such as the approval of regional or state governments, to safeguard the core principles and values of the constitution.

In summary, the power of Parliament to amend the constitution is a critical feature of many democratic systems. It allows for the evolution and adaptation of the fundamental law to meet the changing needs and aspirations of society while ensuring that the process of amendment upholds the principles of democracy, deliberation, and broad consensus.

Limitation given in constitution on parliament’s power to amend constitution

Constitutions typically include limitations on the power of Parliament or the legislative body to amend the constitution. These limitations are meant to safeguard the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the constitution from hasty or arbitrary changes. While the specific limitations can vary from country to country, I will provide some common examples:

  1. Entrenched Clauses: Constitutions may contain certain provisions that are considered “entrenched” or “unamendable.” These clauses are often critical to the foundational principles of the country and are safeguarded from easy modification. Examples of entrenched clauses could include provisions related to fundamental rights, the form of government, the separation of powers, and the sovereignty of the state.
  2. Supermajority Requirement: To amend certain provisions of the constitution, a higher majority than the ordinary legislative majority may be required. This means that a constitutional amendment may need the support of a supermajority, such as a two-thirds or three-fourths majority, in Parliament. The higher threshold ensures a broad consensus and prevents hasty changes to the constitution.
  3. Referendum Requirement: In some cases, a constitutional amendment may be subject to approval by the public through a referendum. This requirement ensures that changes with far-reaching implications have the support and consent of the people directly affected by them. Referenda provide an additional layer of democratic legitimacy to the amendment process.
  4. Procedural Safeguards: Constitutions may establish specific procedures or steps that must be followed when proposing or amending the constitution. These procedural safeguards aim to ensure a transparent and deliberative process, allowing for adequate debate, public input, and careful consideration of the proposed changes.
  5. Judicial Review: In countries with a strong tradition of judicial review, the judiciary may have the power to review and invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure or principles of the constitution. This serves as a check on the legislative body’s power to amend the constitution, preventing changes that undermine the constitutional framework.

It is important to note that the limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the constitution vary widely depending on the specific constitutional framework of each country. The purpose of these limitations is to strike a balance between the need for flexibility and the necessity to protect the core principles and values of the constitution, ensuring stability and continuity in the governance of the nation.

Parliament’s power to amend constituion and supreme court verdict

The power of Parliament to amend the constitution and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and reviewing constitutional amendments are important aspects of constitutional governance in many countries.

  1. Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution:
    Parliament, as the legislative body, is typically granted the power to amend the constitution in most democratic countries. The specific provisions outlining this power may vary depending on the country’s constitution. In some cases, the constitution may require a special majority or a specific procedure for amending certain provisions.

Parliament’s power to amend the constitution reflects the idea that the constitution is not an immutable document but rather a living framework that can be adapted to changing circumstances. It allows the elected representatives to respond to societal needs and evolving priorities by modifying the fundamental law of the land.

However, the power to amend the constitution is not absolute. In many countries, there are limitations on Parliament’s authority to ensure the preservation of essential constitutional principles and protect against arbitrary changes. For example, certain provisions of the constitution may be considered “entrenched” and require a more rigorous process, such as a higher majority or a referendum, to be amended.

  1. Supreme Court Verdict on Constitutional Amendments:
    In many countries, including the United States and India, the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting and reviewing constitutional amendments. The Court’s authority to review amendments is based on its role as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution and its mandate to uphold the constitutional framework.

When a constitutional amendment is challenged in court, the Supreme Court has the power to assess its validity and determine whether it conforms to the principles and provisions of the constitution. The Court examines the amendment to ensure that it does not violate any fundamental rights, infringe upon the basic structure of the constitution, or exceed the scope of Parliament’s amending power.

The Court’s role in reviewing constitutional amendments helps safeguard the integrity and supremacy of the constitution. It acts as a check on potential abuse of the amending power by Parliament, ensuring that amendments adhere to constitutional principles and do not undermine the rights and protections enshrined in the constitution.

The Supreme Court’s verdict on constitutional amendments can have significant implications. If the Court determines that an amendment is unconstitutional, it may strike it down, rendering it invalid and unenforceable. This decision sets a precedent and clarifies the boundaries of Parliament’s amending power, establishing a legal framework for future amendments.

It’s important to note that the extent of the Supreme Court’s authority to review constitutional amendments can vary across different legal systems and countries. The specific jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court are defined by the constitution and the laws of each respective country.

Overall, the interplay between Parliament’s power to amend the constitution and the Supreme Court’s role in reviewing amendments ensures a balance between the need for flexibility in constitutional governance and the preservation of the constitution’s core values and principles. It allows for a dynamic yet controlled process of constitutional change, reinforcing the rule of law and protecting individual rights.

Shankari prasad vs union of india air 1951

The case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that dealt with the power of the Parliament to amend the constitution. Here are the key details and the significance of this case:

Background:
In 1951, the Parliament of India passed the First Amendment Act, which introduced certain changes to the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution. The amendment aimed to nullify the Supreme Court’s previous rulings that had declared certain laws unconstitutional on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.

Key Issue:
The main issue in the Shankari Prasad case was whether the amending power of the Parliament, as provided under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, included the power to amend or abrogate fundamental rights.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court, in a 4-1 majority judgment, held that the power of the Parliament to amend the constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend or abrogate fundamental rights. The Court observed that the amendment power was wide and could be exercised by the Parliament without any limitations or restrictions, including those relating to fundamental rights.

The Court further emphasized that the fundamental rights, although they are fundamental in nature, are not beyond the reach of the amending power. It stated that the Parliament, being the representative body of the people, is best equipped to decide the extent and scope of the fundamental rights and their limitations.

Significance:
The Shankari Prasad case had significant implications for the power balance between the judiciary and the legislature in India. It established the principle that the Parliament has the authority to amend or abrogate fundamental rights through constitutional amendments.

This judgment upheld the supremacy of the Parliament in matters of constitutional amendment and restricted the power of the judiciary to review such amendments on the ground of violating fundamental rights. It solidified the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in India, giving the Parliament the ultimate authority to shape and modify the constitutional framework.

However, it’s important to note that the Shankari Prasad case was subsequently overruled by a larger bench in the famous case of Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643), which held that the Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights. The Golak Nath case marked a significant shift in the interpretation of the amending power and expanded the scope of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Conclusion

The power of parliament to amend the constitution is a significant aspect of any democratic system. In many countries, the constitution is considered the supreme law of the land, providing the framework for governance and protecting individual rights and freedoms. The ability to amend the constitution allows the parliament to adapt the legal framework to the changing needs and aspirations of society.

The conclusion regarding the power of parliament to amend the constitution can be summarized as follows:

  1. Flexibility: Granting parliament the power to amend the constitution ensures that the legal framework can evolve with societal changes. It allows for adjustments and reforms without the need for a complete overhaul of the constitution, providing a more efficient and practical means of addressing emerging issues.
  2. Democratic Process: Parliament, as the representative body of the people, is entrusted with the authority to make decisions on behalf of the citizens. Granting parliament the power to amend the constitution ensures that changes to the fundamental law are made through a democratic process, where elected representatives deliberate, debate, and vote on proposed amendments.
  3. Checks and Balances: While granting parliament the power to amend the constitution is essential, it is equally important to establish checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. These checks may include requiring a supermajority or multi-stage approval process for constitutional amendments, as well as judicial review to ensure compatibility with other constitutional provisions and fundamental rights.
  4. Stability and Continuity: The power to amend the constitution allows for necessary adjustments to the legal framework while maintaining stability and continuity. Societies evolve over time, and the constitution should reflect the changing needs and values of the population. Parliament’s power to amend the constitution ensures that the legal system can adapt to new circumstances without compromising the overall structure and principles.
  5. Limitations: While the power to amend the constitution is crucial, there are typically limitations in place to protect certain fundamental aspects of the constitution. For example, some countries may have entrenched clauses or “basic structures” that cannot be amended, ensuring the preservation of essential democratic principles, separation of powers, or human rights.

In conclusion, the power of parliament to amend the constitution plays a vital role in ensuring the adaptability, democratic legitimacy, stability, and continuity of the legal framework. However, it is essential to strike a balance between flexibility and safeguarding the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the constitution.

Leave a Comment