Recently, the Maldives Supreme Court accepted a case challenging amendments made to its Constitution. The amendments, which critics claim contravene the Constitution’s fundamental principles, include changes potentially aimed at consolidating power and altering governance frameworks.
An ongoing controversy in the Maldives over constitutional amendments and its subsequent legal challenges has striking parallels with India’s landmark Kesavananda Bharati case. Both instances highlight the tension between political aspirations and the fundamental structure of their respective constitutions.
The lawsuit was filed by former Kendhoo MP and lawyer Ali Hussain, who contends that the recent amendments contravened the Constitution and the fundamental structure of the Malidves Constitution.
Opposition parties, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and The Democrats, have announced their decision to join the lawsuit.
According to the constitutional amendment submitted by ruling party People’s National Congress MP for Hulhudhoo Mohamed Shahid on behalf of the government, MPs who leave or are removed from the party they contested with during parliamentary elections will lose their parliamentary seats if the switch occurs within the same term. Additionally, the amendment stipulates that if an independent MP joins a political party, they will also lose their seat.
The amendment now also requires that a public referendum must be held when amending important articles of the Constitution that relates to citizens, stating that if this is to amended, a public referendum also has to be held.
The Maldives’ Constitutional Dilemma
Recently, the Maldives Supreme Court accepted a case challenging amendments made to its Constitution. The amendments, which critics claim contravene the Constitution’s fundamental principles, include changes potentially aimed at consolidating power and altering governance frameworks. Critics argue these changes undermine democratic values and the separation of powers, essential elements of the Maldivian Constitution.
The case has sparked debates about the principles underpinning constitutional amendments. While the government defends the changes as essential for political stability, opponents warn of potential misuse of power and erosion of democratic safeguards.
Kesavananda Bharati Case: Defining India’s Basic Structure Doctrine
The Maldives case bears resemblance to India’s Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. In this landmark judgment, the Indian Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended, even by Parliament. The court held that while constitutional amendments are permissible, they must not alter the core principles – such as sovereignty, democracy, and the rule of law – that form the foundation of the Constitution.
The doctrine of Basic Structure was propounded by the Indian Judiciary in 1973 in the Keshavananda Bharati case to put a limitation on the amending powers of the Parliament so that the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’ cannot be amended in the exercise of its ‘constituent power’ under Article 368 of the Indian constitution.
This ruling was a response to attempts by the Indian government to use its majority to amend the Constitution for political gains. By setting this precedent, the Indian judiciary positioned itself as a guardian of constitutional integrity, ensuring that the Constitution’s essence remains untarnished, regardless of the political climate.
Parallels Between the Two Cases
Both cases involve significant constitutional amendments that sparked legal challenges. In India, the amendments sought to curtail judicial review and expand the government’s authority. Similarly, in the Maldives, the contested amendments are perceived as altering the balance of power between branches of government and potentially undermining democratic principles.
Central to both cases is the judiciary’s role in preserving constitutional sanctity. In the Maldives, the Supreme Court is poised to determine whether the amendments align with the foundational principles of the Constitution. This echoes the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Indian judiciary asserted its authority to safeguard the Constitution’s “basic structure.”
In both scenarios, the stakes are high, with significant political and public implications. In India, the judgment shaped the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Similarly, the Maldives’ legal challenge could redefine the boundaries of constitutional amendments and set a precedent for future governance.
Implications for Democratic Governance
The outcomes of both cases are not just legal milestones but pivotal moments for democratic governance. The Kesavananda Bharati case underscored the importance of limiting political power to prevent authoritarianism and preserve democratic ideals. Similarly, the Maldives’ Supreme Court decision will likely impact the country’s political trajectory and reaffirm—or redefine – the principles guiding its constitutional framework.
The Maldives’ case reflects a broader global challenge of balancing constitutional flexibility with the preservation of foundational principles. Drawing from India’s experience, the Maldives’ judiciary has an opportunity to reinforce its Constitution’s integrity while navigating political complexities. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the parallels with Kesavananda Bharati remind us of the judiciary’s critical role in upholding democratic values in the face of political pressures. The verdict in this case will not only shape the Maldives’ constitutional future but also contribute to the discourse on governance and constitutionalism in democratic societies.
