Q.If amending power is with elected representatives, judiciary should NOT decide validity of amendments. Do you agree? 100 words.

Judicial review of amendments through the basic structure doctrine is best seen as a necessary balance, not an overreach — it protects the Constitution's core without taking away Parliament's general power to amend. …

It is true that the Constitution's amending power rests with elected representatives, and the chapter is explicit that "sovereignty of elected representatives... is the basis of the amendment procedure" — no outside body, and no judiciary, can itself pass an amendment. But the judiciary's role, since the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, is narrower than "deciding the validity of amendments" in general: it "allows Parliament to amend any and all parts of the Constitution" and steps in only to check whether a particular amendment would violate the Constitution's basic structure — the core framework "without which the Constitution cannot be imagined at all." This is not the judiciary substituting its own preferences for Parliament's; it is the judiciary ensuring elected representatives cannot use a temporary special majority to permanently dismantle the very Constitution that gives their own power its legitimacy. Four decades of political leaders across parties accept …