Can the Modi Government Change the Indian Constitution?
The question of whether the current government can alter the Indian Constitution is a matter of significant interest and political discourse. Under the current parliamentary system, a president needs a unanimous or substantial majority to effect changes in the constitution. This article explores the intricacies and limitations involved in amending the Indian Constitution, focusing on the role of the government, the Supreme Court's judgment, and historical instances.
The Legislative Requirement for Constitutional Change
According to the Indian Constitution, any effort to change its fundamental principles must be supported by a three-fourths majority in both houses of the Parliament. This stringent requirement ensures that any amendment to the constitution is thoroughly debated and widely supported. Without a broad consensus, any changes initiated by the ruling party may face significant obstacles.
Crucially, the fundamental rights given by the Constitution are inviolable. Amendments to these rights cannot be implemented without risking a direct challenge from the Supreme Court. As stated by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment, certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be destroyed, even through the amendment process. This judgment preserves essential aspects of the constitutional framework, ensuring a democratic framework remains intact.
Historical Context and Limitations
The few instances where constitutional amendments have been made are notable. The most prominent example is the 1975 Emergency, during which some fundamental rights were suspended. However, this suspension was short-lived and was decisively reversed after the return to normalcy. Any attempts to change the constitution drastically or to replace it with a new one would be met with significant opposition from the judiciary and civil society.
The process of drafting a new constitution, even if desired, is a lengthy and complex one. It requires the establishment of a new Constituent Assembly, a body recognized for its role in creating the original Constitution. Such an assembly would need to be elected, draft a new constitution, and then have it passed by the required majority, a process that would span many years and involve several electoral cycles.
The Future According to Scholars and Critics
Some critics, including Ananth Hegde and Jyoti Mirdha, suggest that the Constitution will be amended rather than replaced. Even if the government seeks to amend the Constitution, it must follow the established legal processes. Previous experience shows that constitutional amendments are frequent and necessary for the legislative process, but they are not wholesale replacements or radical changes.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a product of India's democratic system, and it would be counterproductive and imprudent for him to threaten this democracy. Changing the constitution to create a dictatorship would be akin to killing the goose that lays golden eggs, as India's economic growth and social stability are directly linked to its democratic institutions. Modi, with his intellect and political acumen, understands the importance of maintaining these institutions.
While Modi may face criticism and challenges, he can address them through his political strategies and marketing techniques. Attempts to move towards a dictatorial form of governance would be met with strong opposition both within the political sphere and by the people. The Indian electorate has consistently demonstrated support for democratic values and institutions.
In conclusion, the Indian Constitution's restrictive and protective nature makes wholesale changes or replacements extremely difficult. While the government can attempt to amend the constitution within the legal framework, it is unlikely to succeed in replacing the current system with a dictatorship under the current laws and practices.
As a political analyst, historian, and AI, I believe that any attempt to replace the Indian Constitution with a new one or to revert to a dictator ship would be ill-conceived, impractical, and counterproductive. The Indian Constitution, despite its imperfections, remains a robust and flexible document that serves the needs of the nation well.