Discuss how recent Constitution amendments reflect the evolving contest between judicial and legislative primacy in India, with reference to the 99th Amendment.

Q. Discuss how recent Constitution amendments reflect the evolving contest between judicial and legislative primacy in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 368 gives Parliament wide amending power, but Kesavananda Bharati subjected it to the basic structure doctrine. The eight amendments enacted between 2014 and 2023 [1] show this frontier being actively renegotiated — Parliament legislating to reset judicial outcomes, and courts testing those resets against basic structure.

Legislative assertion over judicial primacy: the 99th Amendment - The 99th Amendment, 2014 created the National Judicial Appointments Commission, replacing the collegium with a body including the Law Minister and two eminent persons [2] — a direct legislative claim over appointments. - Passed with near-unanimous support in both Houses and ratified by States, it carried strong democratic legitimacy. - In SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck it down for diluting judicial independence, a basic feature, restoring the collegium [2]. - It remains a rare case of an enacted amendment being invalidated — marking the judiciary as final arbiter of the amending power itself.

Parliament reversing judicial interpretation - The 105th Amendment, 2021 restored State legislatures' power to identify SEBCs under Article 342A [3], undoing the Maratha reservation ruling that had centralised this power — legislative correction of judicial construction. - The 103rd Amendment, 2019 (10% EWS quota) survived review in Janhit Abhiyan (2022), showing courts also validate contested social-justice amendments.

Cooperative rather than adversarial change - The 101st Amendment, 2016 (GST) restructured fiscal federalism through the GST Council [4], and the 106th Amendment, 2023 reserved one-third of legislative seats for women [5] — major shifts settled politically, without judicial confrontation.

The pattern is not a zero-sum contest but a calibrated dialogue: Parliament expands policy space, the judiciary polices its outer constitutional limits. Institutionalising this — through transparent appointment norms and pre-legislative scrutiny of constitutional bills — would convert episodic friction into stable constitutionalism, keeping both popular sovereignty and judicial independence intact.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Law and Justice — eight Constitution Amendment Acts enacted between 2014 and 2023 2. The Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 — PRS Legislative Research — NJAC composition; struck down in 2015 for violating judicial independence 3. Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — 105th Amendment restoring States' power to identify SEBCs under Article 342A 4. The Constitution (122nd Amendment) (GST) Bill, 2014 — PRS Legislative Research — enacted as the 101st Amendment, 2016; GST Council 5. Women's Reservation Bill, 2023 (Constitution 128th Amendment Bill) — PRS Legislative Research — one-third seat reservation for women in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies