“The Supreme Court of India keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament in amending the Constitution.” Discuss.

1. Introduction:
The Indian Constitution, while providing for the amendment process in Article 368, vests the power to amend the Constitution with the Parliament. However, this power is not absolute, and the Supreme Court of India acts as a crucial check on the arbitrary exercise of this authority. The apex court plays a pivotal role in ensuring that constitutional amendments adhere to the basic structure and do not undermine the core principles enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Basic Structure Doctrine:
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), forms the cornerstone of the judiciary's role in reviewing constitutional amendments. The doctrine asserts that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. The court, through this doctrine, delineates certain core principles such as democracy, rule of law, and judicial review, which are immune from arbitrary amendment.

3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments:
The Supreme Court exercises judicial review to scrutinize the constitutionality of amendments. The power of judicial review empowers the court to assess whether the Parliament, in exercising its amending power, has transgressed the limits imposed by the Basic Structure Doctrine. The court's authority to strike down amendments inconsistent with the basic structure acts as a crucial check against potential abuse of power.

4. Landmark Cases:
Several landmark cases highlight the Supreme Court's intervention in preventing arbitrary amendments. The Kesavananda Bharati case, as mentioned earlier, set the precedent by affirming the basic structure doctrine. In subsequent cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the court further clarified and reinforced its stance on the limited power of Parliament in amending the Constitution.

5. Scope of Review:
The Supreme Court reviews constitutional amendments holistically, considering their impact on the overall constitutional framework. The scope of review extends beyond textual analysis to encompass the intended and foreseeable consequences of an amendment. This comprehensive approach allows the court to safeguard not only explicit constitutional provisions but also the underlying principles that form the bedrock of the Constitution.

6. Parliament's Limited Amending Power:
While recognizing the authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court emphasizes the concept of limited amending power. The court ensures that Parliament does not exploit its amending authority to subvert the essence of the Constitution. The restraint imposed by the judiciary reflects a commitment to preserving the constitutional identity and preventing the arbitrary exercise of power by the legislative branch.

7. Striking Down Amendments:
The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, exercised its power to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure. In the Minerva Mills case, the court held that amendments altering the essential features of the Constitution could be invalidated. This approach reinforces the principle that constitutional amendments must align with the foundational values of the Constitution.

8. Public Interest and Constitutional Morality:
The judiciary also considers broader principles of public interest and constitutional morality while reviewing amendments. The court ensures that amendments do not compromise the democratic ethos, social justice, or individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. By incorporating these considerations, the Supreme Court guards against amendments that may have far-reaching implications on the fabric of Indian democracy.

9. Balance between Judicial and Legislative Powers:
While exercising its check on the arbitrary power of Parliament, the Supreme Court acknowledges the need for a delicate balance between judicial and legislative powers. The court respects the principle of separation of powers and recognizes Parliament's role as a primary lawmaker. The intervention of the judiciary is not an impediment but a safeguard to prevent excesses and maintain constitutional harmony.

10. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India serves as a vigilant guardian, ensuring that the Parliament does not wield its amending power arbitrarily. The Basic Structure Doctrine, judicial review, and a commitment to constitutional principles collectively contribute to the court's role in maintaining the integrity and vitality of the Constitution. This judicial check is not an impediment to parliamentary sovereignty but a necessary safeguard to preserve the essence of the Constitution and protect the rights and values it embodies. Through its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court reinforces the democratic ethos and ensures that constitutional amendments align with the enduring spirit of the Indian Constitution.