9.5. REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION

In the late nineties, efforts were made to review the entire Constitution. In the year 2000 a commission to review the working of the Constitution was appointed by the Government of India under the chairmanship of a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Venkatachaliah.

In the late 1990s, the Indian government recognized the need to assess how well the Constitution was functioning. To do this, a special commission was set up in 2000, led by a respected former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This review aimed to ensure that the Constitution remained relevant and effective in guiding the country.

Think of a school reviewing its curriculum every few years to make sure it meets the needs of students and prepares them for future challenges. Similarly, countries can review their constitutions to adapt to changing social and political circumstances.

Opposition parties and many other organisations boycotted the commission. While a lot of political controversy surrounded this commission, the commission stuck to the theory of basic structure and did not suggest any measures that would endanger the basic structure of the Constitution.

This review commission faced significant political pushback, as opposition parties chose not to participate, claiming that their concerns were not addressed. However, the commission remained committed to the basic structure doctrine, meaning it prioritized maintaining the core principles and framework established by the Constitution, instead of suggesting any drastic changes.

Imagine a town hall meeting where some community members refuse to engage because they feel their concerns won't be heard. Even so, those who are participating might still advocate for necessary changes but ensure that the core values of the community aren't lost in the process.

This shows the significance of the basic structure doctrine in our constitutional practice.

The commitment to the basic structure doctrine highlights its importance in protecting the integrity of the Constitution. This doctrine ensures that while the Constitution can evolve, its fundamental principles must remain intact, thus balancing the need for change with the need for stability.

Think of planting a tree. You can prune or shape the branches as it grows, but the main trunk and roots must remain strong to support it. Similarly, while the Constitution can adapt, its foundational elements must be preserved to maintain its stability and function.

There are many other examples of how judicial interpretation changed our understanding of the Constitution. In many decisions the Supreme Court had held that reservations in jobs and educational institutions cannot exceed fifty per cent of the total seats.

Judicial interpretations by the Supreme Court have significantly influenced the application of the Constitution over the years. For example, the court has ruled that affirmative action (reservations) in education and employment should not exceed a certain percentage, promoting fairness while adhering to constitutional rights.

Consider a classroom setting where a teacher decides that a maximum of 50% of students can receive additional help for their exams. This ensures that while some students benefit from the support, there remains an opportunity for all students to succeed without overcrowding the available resources.

Similarly, in the case involving reservations for other backward classes, the Supreme Court introduced the idea of creamy layer and ruled that persons belonging to this category were not entitled to benefits under reservations.

The Supreme Court's introduction of the 'creamy layer' concept means that not everyone in a particular social category automatically qualifies for affirmative action. This ruling aims to ensure that those who are more advantaged within a community do not take benefits meant for the less privileged.

It’s like a scholarship program that is designed for low-income students. If wealthier families also qualify for the same scholarship solely based on being in the same category as low-income students, it defeats the purpose of helping those who truly need support.

--