Alteration Of Constitution.
Alteration of Constitution
1. Meaning of Alteration of Constitution
Alteration of the Constitution refers to changes made to the provisions of a country’s constitution by a competent authority, usually the legislature, through a formal amendment process. It is different from ordinary legislation, as it affects the basic legal framework and the fundamental principles of governance.
Amendment: Changes explicitly permitted under the constitution itself.
Judicial Review: Courts can review amendments to ensure they comply with the basic structure doctrine (in jurisdictions like India).
2. Types of Constitutional Alterations
Formal Amendment
Changes made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the constitution.
Example: Addition or deletion of articles, schedules, or provisions.
Informal Alteration (Judicial Interpretation)
Changes in the effect of constitutional provisions through judicial interpretation.
Courts can expand, restrict, or clarify constitutional provisions without formally amending the text.
Repeal or Substitution of Provisions
Entire articles may be repealed or substituted with new provisions via formal amendment.
3. Methods of Constitutional Alteration (India as Example)
According to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution:
Simple Majority of Parliament – For provisions that do not affect federal structure (e.g., creation of new offices).
Special Majority of Parliament – For provisions affecting governance but not federalism.
Special Majority + Ratification by States – For provisions affecting federal features or states’ powers.
4. Principles Governing Alteration
Supremacy of Constitution – Parliament cannot exceed powers prescribed in the amendment procedure.
Basic Structure Doctrine – Amendments cannot alter the fundamental structure of the constitution.
Judicial Review – Courts can strike down unconstitutional amendments.
Separation of Powers – Amendment procedure must respect federalism, fundamental rights, and judiciary independence.
5. Landmark Case Laws on Constitutional Alteration
1. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Reaffirmed that Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, subject to procedure in Article 368.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure, which includes democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, and federalism.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Emphasized that amendments cannot destroy the basic structure, reinforcing the Kesavananda Bharati ruling.
5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Struck down constitutional amendments that gave Parliament unlimited power and destroyed the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
6. Kihota Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1992)
Jurisdiction: India
Principle: Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine to the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule), holding that amendments must respect the constitution’s democratic character.
7. Other Comparative Examples
United States – Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Established judicial review as a mechanism to ensure constitutional alterations or laws comply with the Constitution.
United Kingdom – Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949)
Showed that alteration of constitutional conventions can occur by parliamentary statute, even without a codified amendment procedure.
6. Key Principles Summarized
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Competent Authority | Only the legislature (and sometimes states) can amend constitution. |
| Procedural Compliance | Amendments must follow prescribed procedures. |
| Judicial Review | Courts can strike down unconstitutional amendments. |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Core features of the Constitution (e.g., democracy, fundamental rights, federalism) cannot be abrogated. |
| Scope of Amendment | Varies depending on the article being amended. |
| Distinction from Ordinary Law | Constitutional amendments have higher authority and require special procedures. |
7. Practical Implications of Constitutional Alteration
Protects citizens’ rights and prevents misuse of parliamentary power.
Ensures continuity of democratic governance.
Maintains balance between federal units and central authority.
Courts act as a safeguard to prevent arbitrary or destructive amendments.
Provides flexibility to adapt the Constitution to changing societal needs, but within limits.
Conclusion
Alteration of the Constitution is a deliberate, structured, and judicially monitored process. While legislatures have the authority to amend provisions, courts worldwide, and especially in India, have established doctrines like the Basic Structure Doctrine to ensure that core values of democracy, rule of law, federalism, and fundamental rights are preserved. Landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain emphasize the delicate balance between flexibility and rigidity in constitutional governance.
RELATED Blog
comments