Supreme Court Affirms Parliament's Power to Amend Constitution, Including Fundamental Rights, Under Article 368.

The SC upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, affirming Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The court rejected implied limitations on this power and concluded that constitutional amendments are not restricted by Article 13(2). The principle of stare decisis was emphasized, maintaining legal stability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend fundamental rights.
2. Whether the term "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments.
3. Whether there are implied limitations on the power of constitutional amendment.
4. Whether the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, is valid.
5. Whether the principle of stare decisis applies to constitutional amendments.
6. Whether the doctrine of prospective overruling is applicable in this context.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Power to Amend the Constitution under Article 368:
The judgment addressed whether Article 368 of the Constitution confers the power to amend all provisions, including fundamental rights. It was argued that Article 368 provides both the power and procedure for amendment. The court held that the expression "amendment of this Constitution" in Article 368 plainly and unambiguously means amendment of all the provisions of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that the power to amend is not derived from Article 248 or any legislative powers but is a constituent power under Article 368.

2. Interpretation of "Law" in Article 13(2):
The issue was whether the term "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments. The court concluded that the term "law" in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary laws made by the legislature and does not include constitutional amendments. The court reasoned that constitutional amendments are not subject to Article 13(2) as they are enacted through a special procedure under Article 368, which is distinct from ordinary legislative processes.

3. Implied Limitations on Amending Power:
It was argued that there are implied limitations on the power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning fundamental rights and basic features of the Constitution. The court, however, rejected the notion of implied limitations, stating that if the framers intended certain provisions to be unamendable, they would have explicitly stated so in Article 368. The judgment emphasized that the Constitution is a dynamic document, and its provisions, including fundamental rights, can be amended to meet changing needs.

4. Validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964:
The court upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment, which added certain laws to the Ninth Schedule, thereby protecting them from being challenged as violative of fundamental rights. The judgment reasoned that the amendment was validly enacted under Article 368 and did not require ratification by the States as it did not directly amend any of the provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368.

5. Application of Stare Decisis:
The court discussed the principle of stare decisis, emphasizing its importance in maintaining legal certainty and stability. It was argued that the decisions in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, which upheld the power to amend fundamental rights, should not be overturned lightly. The judgment highlighted that many laws and constitutional amendments have been enacted based on these decisions, and overturning them could lead to chaos and uncertainty.

6. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
The court considered the doctrine of prospective overruling, which allows a court to apply a new rule only to future cases, thus preserving past transactions and decisions. However, the court was reluctant to apply this doctrine in the context of constitutional amendments, emphasizing that constitutional provisions and amendments should have uniform application unless expressly stated otherwise.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment and reaffirmed the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The judgment emphasized that the Constitution is a living document, capable of adaptation to meet the evolving needs of society.

---