If amending power is with the elected representatives, judiciary should NOT have the power to decide the validity of amendments. Do you agree? Give your reasons in 100 words.
I do not agree with the statement. While elected representatives have the amending power, the Judiciary must have the power to decide the validity of amendments.
The Parliament has the power and responsibility to make laws and amendments for furthering the interests of the poor, backward and needy. However, the Judiciary insists that all this must take place within the framework provided by the Constitution.
Pro-people measures should not bypass legal procedures. Once laws are bypassed even with good intentions, it can give an excuse to power holders to use their power arbitrarily.
Democracy is as much about checks on arbitrary use of power as it is about the well-being of the people. The Judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining this balance.
The Kesavananda Bharati ruling has set clear limits on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Judiciary has the power to decide whether an amendment violates basic structure or not, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document while protecting its essential features.
Explanation
This question tests understanding of the balance between Parliament's amending power and judicial review. The textbook context clearly supports judicial oversight: Parliament acts for people's welfare but must work within constitutional framework; bypassing procedures (even with good intentions) enables arbitrary power; democracy requires checks on power; and the Kesavananda Bharati ruling established that Judiciary can invalidate amendments violating basic structure.