The Constitution of India grants Fundamental Rights to its citizens under Part III, offering protection against any arbitrary actions by the state and ensuring basic liberties such as equality, freedom of speech, and right to life. However, the question arises whether these Fundamental Rights can be amended. This issue has been a subject of significant debate and legal interpretation in India, with various landmark judgments clarifying the extent to which Fundamental Rights can be altered.
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution did not explicitly address whether Fundamental Rights could be amended, leading to the emergence of conflicting opinions in the early years of India’s judicial history. While the Constitution allows for amendments, the core question is whether these amendments can affect the rights guaranteed under Part III.
The most significant case regarding the amendment of Fundamental Rights is the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine was integral to the Constitution. This means that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the fundamental principles that form the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Fundamental Rights form an essential part of this basic structure, and any constitutional amendment that would diminish or take away these rights would be invalid.
Thus, the Kesavananda Bharati case established a crucial precedent, making it clear that while Fundamental Rights can be subject to certain amendments, they cannot be destroyed or altered in such a way that they disrupt the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The case confirmed that any constitutional amendment that seeks to alter the basic structure of the Constitution—including the rights under Part III—could not be enacted by Parliament.
In the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court further clarified the issue of amending Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that the balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) is an essential part of the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment emphasized that the "balance" between these two parts should not be disturbed by any constitutional amendments.
The Minerva Mills case reinforced the principles laid down in Kesavananda Bharati, stating that amendments to the Constitution, which would affect the core structure of Fundamental Rights, would be unconstitutional. This case reaffirmed that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended in a manner that would dilute or weaken them, highlighting the judiciary's role in protecting these rights from excessive government control.
Before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case (1967) also dealt with the question of amending Fundamental Rights. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution did not extend to altering the rights granted by Part III. However, this view was later overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Court held that while Fundamental Rights could be amended, such amendments must not violate the basic structure.
In response to the Golaknath ruling and the growing concerns over the misuse of constitutional amendments, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 was enacted to limit the power of Parliament in amending the Constitution. It specifically barred amendments that would affect the federal structure, the representation of states in Parliament, or the powers of the President under certain provisions. However, the amendment did not provide an exemption for the Fundamental Rights. This indicated that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, the basic structure principle still applied, preventing any attempt to undermine Fundamental Rights.
From the Kesavananda Bharati case to the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court has made it clear that while the Constitution can be amended, such amendments must adhere to the basic structure doctrine. The Court’s stance has been that the Fundamental Rights, though amendable, are not open to alteration in a manner that would detract from their core importance or undermine the democratic fabric of India.
Fundamental Rights in India can be amended, but any amendment that destroys or alters their basic structure or essential content is not permissible. The balance between the legislature's power to amend and the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's basic structure has been clearly defined in judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the power of amendment is not absolute, and it must respect the integrity of Fundamental Rights as a cornerstone of India's constitutional framework.