JUDICIAL FRICTION WITH PARLIAMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

The Constitution of India is the most comprehensive document in the world providing for three main pillars of parliamentary democracy, namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The very nature of the duty entrusted to Parliament requires formulation of legislative policy and enacting it into a finding rule of conduct. On the other hand, the constitutional duty of the court arising from Judiciary is to annul all those legislative enactments which are either inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution or are beyond the legislative competence. This has led to some controversy between the Legislature and the Judiciary involving questions of relative supremacy of these organs. In view of this matter, the three organs of the State are not competing or rival authorities but are supposed to complement and supplement each other. The division of authority or what is constitutionally called as the separation of powers makes sure that the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary cohabit peacefully without overstepping and encroaching upon other’s jurisdiction. This demands a large measure of cooperation and mutual adjustment among the three wings, no one vying for superiority in authority as the final authority resides in the Supreme law of the land called the Constitution. Thus, it is assumed that the three organs of the State shall discharge their functions within their own field with the ultimate objective of providing together a good system of governmental administration conducive in all respects to the people. But in actual practice, situations of conflicts and rows between the Parliament and the Judiciary have arisen in the past. In view of the above, the present study intends to explore the constitutional amendment in terms of Parliament versus Judiciary debate.