Need

The Constitution of India & its provisions are framed keeping in mind the need of an efficient,smooth & effective system of governance  along with socio-economic development of India post independence. Given the complexity & dynamism of this vast land , a separate Article was kept to allow the Constitution to adapt to the changing needs with passing time.

Article 368  gives power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution along with the procedure. There are possibly three ways to amend the constitution . Two,within the scope of Article 368  and one outside it.

Critics,at times,have criticised the amending procedures under the following grounds :

1) In absence of a special body like the  Constitution convention(as in USA) , the Parliament enjoy the absolute power and hence their is a danger of  it acting like an authoritarian.

2)Major part of the Constitution can be easily amended by a special or a simple majority.

3)Only Parliament can propose a bill to initiate an amendment .

4)In the scenario of a deadlock over the passage of a bill  , there is no provision for a joint sitting of the two houses of the Parliament.

Thus, as evident, the Parliament enjoys a supreme hand when it comes to matters concerned to amendment .  Hence, the role of Supreme Court ,as guardian of the Constitution , become crucial through the checks it performs on the arbitrary power of the Parliament.

The Parliament ,in all its wisdom , might find a current law or provision unsuitable for the current times & thus might go for an amendment . The chances of  such an amendment to sail through is on higher side if the party enjoys an absolute majority or if can take all or majority of  the legislators into confidence . In such a scenario , there are greater chances that the Parliament might infringe onto the Fundamental rights of the citizens or  Federal structure of the country . Herein comes the part of Supreme court , who is the interpreter of the Constitution & is shouldered to hold the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, enjoying the Appellate jurisdiction in case of constitutional matters. One of the well known example in this regard is the Kesavananda case (1973) , where the court gave a landmark ruling.

The chances of a occurrence as above is predominant when a single party enjoys absolute majority like the Congress in 60s & 70s , but in the current era of coalition politics , it is unlikely to happen.Still, statistically it stand a chance.

There is a decent probability of an scenario to emerge where the amendment thus resulting out of Parliamentary deliberations might resolve to an interpretation which is incoherent with the law prevailing . In situations like this , the highest court of appeal, must step in to provide the right direction.

The founding fathers of the country had a vision for the country which gets reflected through the different aspects & components of the Constitution and it is upon the legislature to take it forward with the highest court of the country,Supreme Court, acting as a guiding force by keeping the spirit of the constitution intact.     

Diminished!

The Parliament is the place where Public policies are made which finally drives the country economically, politically & socially. This results in from the constructive & in-depth detailing of the issues discussed, right from the planning till implementation. The role of the Members of Parliament (MPs) thus become inevitably important as the aspirations of people gets reflected through them.

But over the past few decades there has been a deterioration in the quality of discussion, hence the outcomes of parliament in the  form of policies/laws/enactments. A portion of which can be credited to the Anti-defection law, among others ,which was designed to prevent the evil or mischief of political defections motivated by the lure of office, material benefits or other similar considerations.It was intended to strengthen the fabric of Indian Parliamentary Democracy by curbing  unprincipled & unethical defections, but has resulted in some negative tertiary backlashes.

The 52^nd Amendment of 1985 added a new Schedule ,Tenth Schedule, to the constitution relating to political defections. Two of the provisions of which are :

1)A legislator stands disqualified from the house if he/she voluntarily gives up the membership of the party from whose ticket it got elected to the house.

2) A legislator stand disqualified from the house if he/she abstains/votes contrary to the directions given by his/her party.

Thus, the MPs are expected to behave as per their party diktats,  even if the subject at hand needs to be treated differently & without any prejudice. Any departure might lead to their disqualification. This particular provision might discourage the sitting MPs to come up & express openly their views on the floor of the parliament in case it is inconsistent with the party line. Thus depriving the policy debate occasionally & restricting its framework & in the process affecting the overall quality . The above law fails to make any distinction between dissent & defection. It curbs the legislator’s right to dissent and freedom of conscience

It can be easily observed that party bossism precedes everything thus ruining the debate in favour of, mostly, mediocrity. In the light of the recent events it would be a welcome change if alterations in  the current  provisions are made &  freedom be given to the current legislators in voicing their opinion on whose shoulder lies the responsibility of directing the country .