Constitution, Parliament & basic structure theory
IN a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, the question of whether the Constitution or Parliament is supreme is crucial This debate has been ongoing for decades, with proponents on both sides arguing passionately for their positions. While the answer to this question may seem straightforward, it is far from it. However, the debate over the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament has gained further significance with the development of the basic Structure Theory. The basic Structure Theory emerged from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, in which the Indian Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its basic structure. In this context, we will explore the arguments for both sides of the debate and try to come to a conclusion.
The Constitution is supreme law of the land, and its provisions are binding on all citizens and government bodies. It is the foundation of the country’s legal and political systems and sets out the framework for the distribution of powers between the different branches of government. The Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to citizens, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are considered sacrosanct and cannot be taken away by any government or institution. Nevertheless, according to the basic structure theory, certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of Constitution, separation of powers, and basic human rights, cannot be altered by Parliament’s amending power. The basic structure doctrine established that the Constitution’s fundamental features were inviolable, even by a constitutional amendment. In Kesavananda Bharati case, the Court further held that the judiciary had the power to strike down any amendment that violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
However, some argue that Parliament is supreme and some argue that Constitution is supreme. Parliament is the legislative branch of government and is responsible for making laws. It is composed of elected representatives who are accountable to the people. Parliament can pass laws and can amend any provision of the Constitution, provided they do not infringe on fundamental rights. This power to amend the Constitution is seen as a sign of Parliament’s supremacy. On the other hand, Constitution is considered as the only safeguard against tyranny and abuse of power, even of parliamentarians. The Constitution sets out the limits of government power and prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. It also protects the rights of citizens, which are enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any government or institution. The Constitution is seen as the ultimate arbiter of disputes between the different branches of government and is the final word on matters of legality and legitimacy.
Though, supporters of the supremacy of Parliament argue that Parliament is the voice of the people and is therefore the ultimate source of power. The people elect their representatives to Parliament, who are responsible for making laws on their behalf. Parliament is accountable to the people and can be removed from power if they fail to meet their expectations. Parliament is seen as the embodiment of the democratic will of the people and is therefore supreme. However, the basic structure doctrine has a significant impact on the debate over the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament. It ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and its provisions are not subject to the arbitrary will of the Parliament. It also upholds the principle of separation of powers and ensures that no branch of government becomes too powerful. It also recognizes that citizens’ rights are an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be altered by the Parliament. In light of the basic structure doctrine, the question of whether the Constitution or Parliament is supreme takes on a new dimension. The basic structure doctrine establishes that the Constitution’s fundamental features are supreme and cannot be amended by the Parliament. Parliament’s powers are subject to the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be used to undermine it. Therefore, the debate over the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament must take into account the Basic Structure Doctrine. While Parliament is the legislative branch of government and has the power to make laws, it cannot do so in a way that violates the Constitution’s basic structure. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and its provisions are binding on all citizens and government bodies, including Parliament. In conclusion, the debate over whether the Constitution or Parliament is supreme is a complex and nuanced one. Both sides though have some arguments, but ultimately, it is up to the courts to interpret the Constitution and decide whether Parliament has overstepped its bounds. And the Basic Structure Doctrine has significantly impacted the debate over the supremacy of the Constitution or Parliament. It ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and upholds the principle of separation of powers. It also affirms the importance of fundamental rights and human dignity. While Parliament is an essential part of our democratic system, its powers are subject to the Constitution’s basic structure, and it cannot infringe upon the Constitution’s fundamental features. In the last, it can be said that what is clear is that the Constitution and Parliament are both essential components of our democratic system and must work together to ensure the protection of citizens’ rights and the proper functioning of our government.
The writer is an advocate of High Court.
Email: hafizazeemkhokhar@gmail.com.
