Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Under Article 368(1) of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, Parliament may, in the exercise of its Constituent power, amend, by way of addition, variation or repeal, any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. The power to amend the Constitution, under Article 368, does not include the power to completely abrogate the Constitution and replace it by an entirely new Constitution. Amendment of the Constitution, necessarily, contemplates only changes to be made in it. As a result of the amendment, the old Constitution is retained though in the amended form. What is meant by the retention of the old Constitution, is the retention of the basic structure or framework of the old Constitution. It is not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern. (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ).

The minimum of the existing Constitution which should be left intact, in order to hold that the existing Constitution has been retained in an amended form and not done away with, is the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. If the basic structure is retained, the old Constitution would continue even though other provisions have undergone a change. On the contrary, if the basic structure is changed, mere retention of some Articles of the existing Constitution would not warrant the conclusion that the existing Constitution continues and survives. (Kesavananda Bharati4).

In L. Chandra Kumar3, the Supreme Court held that, the exclusion of jurisdiction clauses in all legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution would be unconstitutional; under the existing system, direct appeals were provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; this situation would also stand modified; no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal would directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; instead, the aggrieved party would be entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and, from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the aggrieved party could move the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; and the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution and cannot be ousted.

In Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Union of India , the Supreme Court, by an interim order dated 10.3.2014, stayed the operation of paragraphs 40 and 41 of its earlier decision in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan12. However, the appeal was withdrawn on 11.8.2014. (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forums v. Union of India ).

It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court, in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan12, has held that, in all matters falling with its ambit, it is only the jurisdiction of the NGT which can be invoked; and the petitioners should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fact, however, remains that the power of judicial review, conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution (L. Chandra Kumar3), and such a power cannot, therefore, be negated or circumscribed or obliterated even by a constitutional amendment made in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 368 of the Constitution, far less by Legislation plenary or subordinate.