CONSTITUTIONAL LAW_1

ASSIGNMENT ON AMENDMENTS AND PREAMBLE

SEMESTER_III

SHANUL HAQUE
REGULAR 059
20BLW058
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY
NEW DELHI- 110025
NAME OF THE FACULTY - Dr. Mohammad Asad Malik (Associate Professor, F/o

law)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 Whether Preamble a part of the Constitution? 4-5

3 Will of the People of India 5-8

- SOVEREIGN
-SOCIALIST
-SECULAR
-DEMOCRATIC
-REPUBLIC
4 AMENDMENTS 8

5 NATURE OF THE AMENDING PROCESS 8

6 Amendments in the constitution 9-10

7 The Supreme Court and the Amendment Power 10-11

8 BASIC STRUCTURE 11-14

9 SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIOUS 14

JUDGMENTS
10 CONCLUSION 15

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY 16

Page No.2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Mohammad Asad Malik who gave me this golden opportunity
to work on this project on topic of AMENDMENTS AND PREAMBLE. I really
understood the topic very well and I got to learn a lot from this topic. I really hope this
will be very helpful for me. I thank Allah for providing me with knowledge.

Finally, I would like to thank my father, mother and my family for keep supporting me
in my hard times and it helped me lot in finalizing my project.

Page No.3
 Introduction

After the attainment of independence the people of India were looking for a government of their own
to fulfill the aspirations they had cherished during the freedom struggle. As the leaders had promised
that after the independence India will have a government based on the ideas of democracy and justice,
it was hence, necessary to give a proper shape to these ideas and ideals 1. These were enshrined by the
Constituent Assembly in the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the documentation of the
founding faiths of a nation and the fundamental directions for their fulfillment. So much so, an
organic, not pedantic, approach to interpretation, must guide the judicial process. The healing art of
harmonious construction, not the tempting game of hair-splitting promoters the rhythm of the rule of
law2.

The term ‘Preamble’ means the introduction to the Statute. It is the introductory part of the
Constitution3. The Preamble generally sets the ideals and goals which the makers of the constitution
intend to achieve through the constitution4. Therefore, it is also regarded as the key to open the mind
of the makers of the Constitution which may show the general purposes for which they made several
provisions in the Constitution5. For these reasons the Preamble is also a legitimate aid in the
interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. It expresses “what we thought or dreamt for so
long”. It can be said that the constitution embodies a solemn form of all the ideas and aspirations for
which the country had struggled during the British regime6.

In simple words the Preamble serves as an introduction to the Constitution and highlights in brief the
basic ideas for which the constitution stands and what the frames of the Constitution sought out to
achieve for the citizens of India.

Whether Preamble a part of the Constitution?

This difficult question has been highly a matter of arguments and discussions in the past that
whether Preamble should be treated as a part of the constitution or not. The procedure for making the
preamble was same as the procedure for making Constitution was enacted and adopted by the
Constituent Assembly. The preamble was put after to vote, in the Constituent Assembly, by a motion
which stated that the “Preamble stands as a part of the Constitution” and the motion was adopted7

1 Making of the Constitution: The Preamble and Political Philosophy, URL: http://nos.org317courseEL4%20THE
%20PREAMBLE%20AND%20POLITICAL%20PHILOSOPHY.pdf
2 Fatehchand v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825 at 1827 : 1977 (2) SCR 828 : (1977) 2 SCC 670
3 Collins, New Gem Dictionary, 1965, 401.
4 The Preamble contains in a nutshell its ideas and its aspirations.’, per Subba Rao, C.J. in Golak Nath v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, 1643, 1655: (1967) 2 SCR 762.
5 Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, Re, AIR 1960 SC 845, 856: (1960) 3 SCR 250.
6 Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
7 Constituent Assembly Debates, X, 429.

Page No.4
Referring to the history of the drafting and the ultimate adoption of the Preamble, the Supreme Court
in Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala8 case laid down that the Preamble to the Indian Constitution
was an integral part of the Constitution.

Whether the Preamble can be amended

In Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala9 it was established, as discussed above, that the Preamble is
an integral part of the Constitution and thus was not outside the reach of amendment under Article 368
of the Constitution of India. In the exercise of this amending power the Constitution (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed and it amended the preamble inserting therein, “Socialist”,
“Secular” and “integrity”.

Will of the People of India

The Constitution, as its preamble states, is a creation of the will of “the People of India” who have, as
the preamble enunciates, solemnly resolved to constitute India into a “Sovereign Democratic
Republic.” The idea of sovereignty involves freedom from all foreign control or domination. The idea
of democracy involves freedom from all internal control or domination. Both ideas combined together
reassert the sovereignty and paramountcy of the people’s will over everything. The same has been
taken up from the Constitution of the United States of America and the United Nations Charter.

In other terms the words “We, the People of India” declare in unambiguous terms that the Constitution
has been adopted, enacted and given to themselves by the people of India. It is declared that ultimate
sovereignty in India, resides in the people themselves. This fact has been disputed that it is not
historically true, for, neither the men who made the Constitution were said to be fully representatives
of the Nation, nor the Constitution had been ratified by a direct vote of the people10

Mr. Nehru, speaking in the Constituent Assembly, explained the significance of these words.
He explained that the word ‘People’ indicated that the Constitution was not created by the States, nor
by the people of the several States, but by the people of India in their aggregate capacity. So enacted, it
would not be open to any State, or group of States either to put an end to our Constitution or to secede
from the Union created by it.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madangopal,

referred to the words “We the people of India” in the Preamble and observed that “our Constitution, as
appears from the Preamble, derives its authority from the people of India.”To sum it up we can say

8 Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

9 Ibid.
10 Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008, 26.

Page No.5
that the supreme power of the land rests with the people of India and the true sovereignty lies with the
citizens of India as evident from the Preamble.

Sovereign

As defined by R.H. Soltan, “Sovereignty is the exercise of the final legal coercive power of the
State.” According to another definition by Woodrow Wilson11, “Sovereignty is the daily operative
power of framing and giving efficiency to the laws.”
In other words “sovereign” stands for the power which is absolute and uncontrolled within its own
sphere. In the words of Cooley, “A State is sovereign when there resides within itself a supreme
absolute power, acknowledging no superior.” The term ‘sovereign’ used in the Preamble seems to have
been taken from Article 5 of the Constitution of Ireland12.
The word “sovereign” emphasizes that India is no more dependent upon any outside authority.
However, India is still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations but its membership of the
Commonwealth of Nations is not inconsistent with her independent sovereign status and it is merely a
voluntary association of India and it is open to India to cut off this association at her will, and that it
has no Constitutional significance. In very simple and concise terms we can say that the intention
behind inserting the word “sovereign” into the Preamble was to highlight the face that India is not
dependent on any outside authority and that both externally and internally India is a sovereign. India
recognizes no foreign power as its master.

Socialist

The term ‘Socialist’ was added to the Preamble of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976. The term ‘Socialist’ literally relates to the theory advocating state ownership
and control of means of ownership and control of means of production, distribution and exchange 13.
But the term is used in a different sense in the Constitution. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime
Minister, explained that the term ‘socialist’ was used simply to indicate that the goal of the State in
India was to secure ‘a better life for the people of India’ or ‘equality of opportunity’. She, thus, made it
clear that India had her own concept of socialism and all she wanted was a better life for her people.14

In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India15, the Court observed that “the basic framework of socialism is to
provide a descent standard of life to the working people and especially provide from cradle to grave.
This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of
income.” The principal aim of a socialist State, the Supreme Court held, was to eliminate inequality in

11 Myneni, SR., Political Science for Law Students, 2nd Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 2006, 100
12 Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008, 26.
13 Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus, 9th Impression, 2007. 725.
14 Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008, 27.
15 D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,

Page No.6
income and status and standard of life. Thus we can say that democratic socialism aims to end poverty,
ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity.
Secular
The real meaning of secularism in the language of Gandhi is Sarva-Dharma-Sambhav meaning equal
treatment and respect for all religions, but we have misunderstood the meaning of secularism as
Sarva-Dharma-Sam-Abhav meaning negation of all religions. The term Secularism explains that the
State does not recognize any religion as a State religion and that it treats all religions equally with
equal individual rights for faith, religion or worship.

Secular

The concept of Secularism is also contained in Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution by way of Right to
Freedom of Religion. The Supreme Court in St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat16, explained that
India “is neither anti-God, nor pro-God; it treats alike the devout, the antagonistic and the atheist. It
eliminates God from the matters of the State and ensures that no one shall be discriminated against on
the ground of religion.” That every person if free to go to the God or Heaven in his own ways. And,
that worshiping God is left to be dictated by his own conscience17.
Secularism is declared to be the one of the basic features of the Constitution, which is beyond the
amending power of the Parliament18

Democratic

The term democracy has been derived from the Greet root ‘demos’ which means ‘the people’: ‘Kratos’
stands for ‘rule’ or ‘government’. Thus literally, democracy signifies ‘the rule of the people.’ 19 The
definition given by Abraham Lincoln reads “Democracy is the government of the people, by the
people, and for the people.”36 The Constitution of India sets up India a “Democratic Republic”.
Democracy may be properly defined as that form of Government in the administration of which the
mass of adult population has some direct or indirect share. The Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Dist.
Magistrate Rai Bareilly20, observed: “Democracy is a concept, a political philosophy, an ideal
practiced by many nations culturally advanced and politically mature by resorting to governance by
representatives of the people elected directly or indirectly.” Democracy thus may be direct or indirect.
In the case mentioned above it was also inferred that direct democracy is one where the people
directly exercise their power of the government and carry on the government and change the
government by their direct vote. In an indirect democracy, the people elect their representatives who
carry on the administration of the government directly.
16 St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
17 Kumar, Narender; The Constitutional Law of India, 1st Ed., Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad, 2009. 21.
18 S.R. Bommani v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
19 Gauba, OP., An Introduction to Political Theory, 4th Edition, Macmillan India Ltd., Delhi, 2007. 421
20 Mohan Lal v. Dist. Magistrate Rai Bareilly, AIR 1993 SC 2042.

Page No.7
Republic

The term Republic is used in distinction to ‘Monarchy.’ 21 In other words India is a republic because
the head of the State is not a hereditary monarch 22. Hence, in India the head of State is not a heredity
position as seen in the case of the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland; the head of the state in India is an elected person who is elected by the citizens of India. The
Constitution of India sets up in India a ‘republican form of Government’, in which, the ultimate power
resides in the body of the people, enfranchised by universal adult franchise. The President of India, is
the Executive Head of the State, is elected by the people and holds office for a term of five years.

AMENDMENTS

Law and society regulate each other. Law changes if changes take place in society. The laws can’t be
stagnant. With the growing state of society, its norms and regulations also need to be amended timely.
The Indian Constitution is neither flexible nor rigid, but a combination of both. Article 368 talks about
the powers and procedure for Parliament to amend the Constitution.

NATURE OF THE AMENDING PROCESS

The nature of the amending process envisaged by the makers of our Constitution can be best explained
by referring to the observation of Pandit Nehru, that the constitution should not so rigid that it cannot
be adpted to the changing needs of national development and strength.23
In the words of Dr. Ambedkar, explaining the proposals for amendment introduced by him in the
Constituent Assembly.
“Those who are dissatisfied with the Constitution have only a to a two-thirds majority, and if
they with the constitution have only to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Parliament elected on adult
franchise in their favor, their dissatisfaction with the Constitution cannot obtain even a 2/3rd majority
in parliament elected on adult franchise in their favor their dissatisfaction with the constitution cannot
be deemed to be shared by the general public.”

21 Kumar, Narender: Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008, 31.
22 Pandey, J.N., The Constitution of India, 47th Edition, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2010, 31.
23 Durga Das Basu., Introduction To The Constitution of India, 14th Edition Prentice Hall of India

Page No.8
Amendments in the constitution

In all cases of amendment of the constitution bill has to be passed by the union parliament by the
special majority in the case of certain provisions which affect the federal structure a further step is
required with a ratification by the legislature of at least half of the states the president for his assent.24

There are three ways in which the Indian Constitution can be amended:
1. Amendment by a Simple Majority
2. Amendment by a Special Majority
3. Amendment by Special Majority and Ratification of Half of the States

1. Amendment by a Simple Majority - articles that can be amended by parliament by simple

majority as that required for passing of any ordinary law. The amendments contemplated in articles
525,16926 and 239-A27 can be made by simple majority. These articles are specifically excluded from
the purview of the procedure prescribed in article 368.
It applies to the following provisions of the Constitution:
 Admission/ formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing States.
 Citizenship provision.
 Provision regarding delimitation of constituencies.
 Quorum of the two Houses of Parliament.
 Privileges and Salaries and allowances of the MPs.
 Rules of procedure in each House of the Parliament.
 English as a language of the Parliament.

24 The Constitution of India, Article 368

25 Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has
his domicile in the territory of India and
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years preceding such commencement,
shall be a citizen of India
26 Abolition or creation of Legislative Councils in States
27 Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories.- (1) Parliament may by law
create for the Union territory of Pondicherry—
(a) a body, whether elected or partly nominated and partly elected, to function as a Legislature for the Union territory, or
(b) a Council of Ministers, or both with such constitution, powers and functions, in each case, as may be specified in the
law.
(2) Any such law as is referred to in clause (1) shall not be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the
purposes of article 368 notwithstanding that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending this
Constitution.

Page No.9
  Appointment of Judges and jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
 Creation or abolition of Upper Houses in any state.
 Legislatures for Union Territories.
 Elections in the country.
 Official language of India.
 Second, fifth and sixth Schedules of the Constitution.28

2. Amendment by special majority- articles of the constitution which can be amended by

special majority as laid down in article 368. All constitutional amendments, other than those referred
to above, come within this category and must be effected by a majority of not less than 2/3 of the
members of that house present and voting.

3. By special majority and ratification by state- article which require, in addition to the special
majority mentioned above. Ratification should not be less than by ½ of the state legislatures. The
states are having an important voice in the amendment of these matters. These are fundamental
matters where states have important power under the constitution and any unilateral amendment by
the parliament may vitally affect the fundamental basis of the system built up by the constitution. This
class of articles consist of amendments which seek to make any change in the provisions mentioned in
article 368. The following provisions require ratification by the states:
• Election of president- article 54 and 55
• Extent of the executive powers of the union and the states- articles 73 and 162
• Articles dealing with judiciary, SC, HC in the states and union territories- articles 124 to
147, 214 to 231, and 241.
• Distribution of legislative powers between the centre and the state- articles 245 to 255.
• Any of the lists of the VIIth schedule.
• Representation of states in parliament IVth schedule.
• Article 368 itself.

The Supreme Court and the Amendment Power:

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India29: In this case first time the question whether fundamental rights
can be amended under Article 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court. In that case the
28 Procedure of Amendment of the Constitution: Method of Amendment, available at:
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/procedure-of-amendment-of-the-constitution-method-of-amendment/
40333/ (last visited on 12th March 2016)
29 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

Page No.10
Validity of the First Constitutional Amendment which added Article 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution
was challenged. It was contended that though it may be open to Parliament to amend the provisions in
respect of the fundamental rights, the amendments, would have to be tested in the light of the
provisions contained in Art.13(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, with a bench of five judges,
unanimously rejected the contention that in so far as the First Amendment took away or abridged the
fundamental rights conferred by Part III it should not be upheld in the light of the provisions of article
13(2).

Golakhnath v. State of Punjab30: The doubts of the minority judges in Sajjan Singh's case as to the
correctness of the decision in Shankari Prasad's case were raised before a bench of eleven judges of
the Supreme Court in this case, in which the validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the
Constitution in so far as they affected fundamental rights was again challenged. The Fourth
Amendment was also challenged. This time a majority of six judges to five decided that Parliament
had no power to amend any of the provisions of Part III, so as to take away or abridge the fundamental
rights enshrined therein. The majority were, however, faced with the problem that, if the First, Fourth
and Seventeenth Amendments were at a late stage to be invalidated, the impact on social and
economic affairs would be chaotic. On the other hand, the court considered that it had a duty to correct
errors in the law. It, therefore, adopted a doctrine of prospective overruling under which the three
constitutional amendments concerned would continue to be valid, and the decision to the effect that
Parliament had no power to amend the provisions of Part III would operate for the future only.31

BASIC STRUCTURE:

After the Golakhnath’s decision, the Parliament sought to supersede it by amending article 368 itself,
by the Constitution 24th amendment Act,1971, as a result of which an amendment of the Constitution
passed in accordance Art..368, will not be ‘law’ within the meaning of the Art.13 and the validity of
the Constitution Amendment Act shall not be open to question on the ground that it takes away or
affects the fundamental right. The Constitutional validity of 24 th amendment act was itself challenged
in a case from Kerala ( Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala ). The majority of the full court upheld

30 Golakhnath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643

31 Durga Das Basu., Introduction To The Constitution of India, 14th Edition Prentice Hall of India

Page No.11
the validity of the 24th Amendment and overruled the case of Golaknath. 32 The Supreme Court
declared that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution and parliament could not use its amending powers under Article 368 to 'damage',
'weaken', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the ‘basic structure' or framework of the constitution.
This decision is not just a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law, but a turning point in
constitutional history.

Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala33: It is a landmark of the Supreme Court of India, and is the
basis in Indian law for the exercise by the Indian judiciary of the power to judicially review, and strike
down, amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict with or
seek to alter the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment also defined the extent to which the
Indian Parliament could restrict the right to property, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of
large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to
property could not be restricted.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan34: Basic Structure concept reaffirmed in this case. The Supreme
Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause (4) of article 329-A,which was
inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the
parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution. The amendment was made to the
jurisdiction of all courts including SC, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime Minister
of India.

Basic Features of the Constitution according to the Election case verdict Again, each judge expressed
views about what amounts to the basic structure of the Constitution: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed
four basic features which he considered unamendable:
a) Sovereign democratic republic status.
b) Equality of status and opportunity of an individual.
c) Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.
d) 'Government of laws and not of men' i.e. the rule of law.

32 Ibid.
33 Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
34 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

Page No.12
42nd Amendment: The Indira Gandhi sought to arrest these implications of Keshavananda, and cut the
fetters sought to be imposed on the sovereignty of Parliament by inserting two Clauses (4) – (5) in the
Article 368, by the Amendment Act 1976. 35 Clause 5 declares that “there shall be no limitation” “on
the constituent power of Parliament to amend” the Clause (4) asserted the supremacy of the
parliament. It was urged that Parliament represents the will of the people and if people desire to amend
the Constitution through Parliament there can be no limitation whatever on the exercise of this power.
This amendment removed the limitation imposed on the amending power of the Parliament by the
ruling of the Supreme Court in Keshvanand Bharti’s case. It was said that the theory of ‘basic
structure’ as invented by the Supreme Court is vague and will create difficulties. The amendment was
intended to rectify this situation.36

In Minerva mills vs. UOI, SC struck down clauses (4) and (5) of article 368 inserted b the 42 nd
amendment, on the ground that these clauses destroyed the essential feature of the basic structure of
the constitution. Limiting amending power is a basic structure of the constitution. Since these clauses
removed all the limitations on the amending power and thereby conferred unlimited amending power,
it was destructive of the basic structure of the constitution. The judgment makes it clear that
Constitution, not parliament is supreme. Supreme Court has held that the following are the basic
features of the Constitution:
 limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution;
 harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles;
 fundamental rights in certain cases;
 Power of judicial review in certain cases

In M. Nagraj v. Union of India37, the petitioners challenged the Constitutional validity of the
Constitution i.e. 77th Amendment, 81st amendment, 82nd Amendment and 85th Amendment However,
a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI Shabharwal unanimously held that these
amendments do not violate the basic feature of the Constitution. They are enabling provisions and

35 Durga Das Basu., Constitutional Law of India (P.H.I. 1985)

36 Amendment of Indian Constitution, Available at : https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l70-Article368.html (last
visited on 12th November 2021)
37 AIR 2007 SC 71

Page No.13
only apply to SC and ST. They do not obliterate constitutional requirements, such as 50% ceiling limit
in reservation. Creamy Layer Rule and post based roster sub-classification between O.B.C. on one
hand, and Second STs on the other hand, as held in Indra Sawhney’s case. They do not alter structure
of equality codes; therefore, they are not beyond amending power of Parliament.

SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS:

The effect of the various decisions of the Supreme Court may be thus summarized:
 Parliament has limited powers to amend the constitution.
 Parliament cannot damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
 The Procedure prescribed for the amendment is mandatory. Non compliance with it will result
in invalidity of the amendment.
 Clauses (4) and (5) inserted in Art. 368 by the 42nd Amendment Act are invalid because they
take away the right of judicial review.
 Parliament cannot increase its amending power by amending Art. 368.

Page No.14
Conclusion

To conclude I would like to highlight that the Preamble highlights the very principles which the
Constitution works on and the objectives which the same has to achieve. The drafters of the
Constitution also drafted the Preamble as a mirror and an introduction of the same. It would not be
wrong to say that the spirit of the Constitution is sufficiently summated in the Preamble.
The amendment process was incorporated in the Constitution by the draftsmen of the Constitution to
help India adapt itself to the changing circumstances. Society is never stagnant. It is ever- changing.
Therefore the amending procedure was made partly flexible so as to make it easy for the Legislature.
But the Parliament started thinking that it has unlimited amending power. It assumed itself to be the
supreme law when the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Parliament started making
amendments which were destroying the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. But after the
landmark decisions of Keshavnand Bharati and Minerva Mills the Court by its power of judicial
review has curtailed the amending power of the Parliament. The amendments made by the Parliament
can no more affect the basic structure of the Constitution. So for the protection of welfare state,
fundamental rights, Unity and integrity of the nation, Sovereign democratic republic and for Liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, interpretation of judiciary is mandatory. We can say
NONE IS ABOVE CONSTITUTION, NOT EVEN PARLIAMENT OR JUDICIARY.

Page No.15
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, 2008, 26.
Myneni, SR., Political Science for Law Students, 2nd Edition, Allahabad Law Agency, 2006, 100
Gauba, OP., An Introduction to Political Theory, 4th Edition, Macmillan India Ltd., Delhi, 2007. 421
Durga Das Basu., Introduction To The Constitution of India, 14th Edition Prentice Hall of India
Durga Das Basu., Constitutional Law of India (P.H.I. 1985)
Collins, New Gem Dictionary, 1965, 401.
Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus, 9th Impression, 2007. 725.

Fatehchand v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, 1643, 1655: (1967) 2 SCR 762.
Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, Re, AIR 1960 SC 845, 856: (1960) 3 SCR 250.
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 1389.
S.R. Bommani v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
Mohan Lal v. Dist. Magistrate Rai Bareilly, AIR 1993 SC 2042.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

Making of the Constitution: The Preamble and Political Philosophy, URL:

http://nos.org317courseEL4%20THE%20PREAMBLE%20AND%20POLITICAL
%20PHILOSOPHY.pdf
Procedure of Amendment of the Constitution: Method of Amendment, available at:
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/constitution/procedure-of-amendment-of-the-constitution-method-
of-amendment/40333/ (last visited on 12th November 2021)
Amendment of Indian Constitution, available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l70-
Article368.html

Page No.16