AN OVERVIEW OF LANDMARK CASES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN INDIA

AN OVERVIEW OF LANDMARK CASES OF  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN INDIA

Author - Shivanshi Shukla, a Student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

INTRODUCTION

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation’s fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX (Article 368) of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

The Indian Constitution has currently undergone 105 amendments in total. Over time, each of these amendments has significantly altered our Constitution. The acceptance of a change to the Constitution by a majority vote of both the houses through a bill constitutes the process of a constitutional amendment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

In this article, various landmark constitutional amendments have been enlisted with the cases that led to that particular amendment.

Rameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar

Rameshwar Singh was a prominent zamindar of Bihar, he challenged the Bihar Zamindari Abolition Act of 1950, in Patna High Court.

In this case it was held that this law was unconstitutional with respect to Article 39, and the Directive Principles of State Policy will not prevail over the Fundamental Rights provided in the Constitution.

Due to this came the first ever amendment in the Constitution of India. The 1st amendment also added Article 31A and 31B along with the 9th Schedule.

Shankari prasad vs. Union of India

It was the first case which challenged the first constitutional amendment. It was only after this that the 2nd and 3rd amendment were introduced. The following issues were raised in this case:

1. Whether Amendment is law or not?

2. Whether Fundamental rights can be amended or not, and is there any limitation on the amending power of the Parliament?

3. What is the source of amending power of parliament?

The Supreme Court answered the first question that amendment saying that Amendment is not a law, and there is a difference between the Legislative Power and the Constituent Power of the Parliament, for the purposes of Article 13(2). 

The Supreme Court contended that the Parliament’s power of amending the Constitution included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well. Thus, there is no limitation on the amending power of the Parliament.

And the source of this amending power lies in Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.

Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, 1965

In this case, the 17th amendment to the Constitution was challenged. A nine-judge bench was constituted to decide the case. The issues raised in the previous case were repeated again here and the court also agreed on its previous judgement of the Shankari Prasad case.

I.C. Golak Nath vs, State of Punjab, 1967

Again the 17th amendment was challenged here. An eleven-judge bench was constituted for this case and the judgement was delivered in the ratio of 6:5.

This judgement of the Supreme Court overruled it’s previous two judgements. Supreme Court held that amendment is law, and the Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights. Thus, there will be a limitation on Parliament while amending the constitution. The source of this power lied in Article 248.

The question was what would happen to those amendments which were already done to the Fundamental Rights. To answer this question Supreme Court evolved the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling. 

The following amendments were brought:

• 24th amendment, which changed the heading of Article 368 and included the word ‘power’ in the heading, new clause (4) added to Article 13.

• 25th amendment, added a new article, Article 31C. This provides that if any law is enacted for implementing Article 39B, and 39C, then it prevails over Article 14 and 19.

• 26th amendment, abolishes the Privy Purse.

• 29th amendment, puts many laws into the 9th schedule.

Kesavananda Bharati Case

The 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments were challenged in this case. This case was argued by a galaxy of lawyers, the petitioner side was argued by Nani Palkhiwala and the government side was argued by HM Shervai (Advocate General of State of Maharashtra).

This historical judgement came on 24th April, 1973, by majority of 7:6 ratio of a 13 Judge Bench. This case had 9 separate opinions given by different judges, which could technically be divided in the ratio of 6:6:1.

Justice HR Khanna, said that amendment is law and Parliament can amend the constitution, but the basic features cannot be amended.

Supreme Court in its verdict upheld the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendment and held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but not the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Indira Nehra Gandhi vs. Raj Narain

The 39th amendment which added Article 329(A) to the Constitution of India, was challenged in this case. The Supreme Court said that free and fair election and judicial review were a part of the basic structure and held the 39th amendment unconstitutional. It was the first time that any amendment was held unconstitutional in India.

Minerva Mills Case

The 42nd amendment which added Article 368(4) and 368(5) to the Constitution, was challenged in this case. It was held that the 42nd amendment and Article 368(4) and 368(5) is unconstitutional. Basic feature includes that DPSP’s will not prevail over all the Fundamental Rights will not be amended.

IR Cohelo Case

A nine-judge constitutional bench was constituted in this case. The Supreme Court held that the 9th schedule is not beyond the power of Judicial Review. Any law which is put into the 9th schedule after 24th April, 1973 – can be reviewed on the following grounds-

1. Whether the said Act or Law is violating the basic structure or not?

2. Whether they conform with those fundamental rights which form the part of the basic structure?

Conclusion

The article goes through several significant changes made to the Indian Constitution. These changes are implemented in accordance with the political and societal needs of the nation.