Author: Bhumi Kamble, DR. D.Y. Patil College of Law
INTRODUCTION
As the Court has the authority to enforce them, Fundamental Rights are the cornerstone of the Constitution and ought to be regarded as more than just a set of guidelines. The Constitution’s three branches are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is crucial that they are properly balanced with one another. There have been occasions when the legislative and executive branches have taken action to increase their authority over the other branches. The judiciary has repeatedly taken action to defend the rights of the person. A similar attempt to abuse the Parliament’s authority occurred in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India case.
BACKGROUND OF CASE
One of the most significant rulings in the Indian Constitution’s history was rendered by the Supreme Court on April 24, 1973. Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the government attempted to purchase Kesavananda Bharati’s land through the Land Acquisition Act of 1969. Several changes were passed prior to the challenge:
First, the 24th Amendment It gave the Parliament the authority to change, and nothing done under Article 368 would apply to Article 13.
Second: The 25th Amendment It lessened the State’s obligation to fairly pay the landlords. The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(c) and Article 31(c) are no longer related as a result. Article 14, 19, or 31 of the Indian Constitution were deemed less important than clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39.
Third: The Kerala Land Reform Act, 1969 was included to the Ninth Schedule by the 29th Amendment, placing it outside the purview of the judiciary.
The Court decided that the Constitution can be changed by the Parliament without impairing the basic structure theory. The Parliament has the authority to modify fundamental rights, if they align with the basic structure concept. The Court overturned the section that limited judicial review.
Since this ruling conflicted with the statute, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 was passed, which stated that all Directive Principles of State Policy would take precedence over Article 14 and 19 Fundamental Rights. Further inserted provisions (4) and (5) declared that judicial review does not apply to the Constitutional Amendment under Article 368. This modification was passed to overturn the Kesavananda Bharati case ruling and allow any law to be implemented without worrying about being scrutinised by the courts.
THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
Before analysing the case details the issue which was the major part of this case was the basic structure of constitution. The word “basic structure” is not found in the Indian Constitution; rather, it has emerged from several court rulings. According to this theory, changes to the Constitution can be made without impairing its fundamental design.
The following topics fall within the basic structure doctrine:
The supremacy of law.
Division of authority between the State and the Centre.
The harmony between the State’s directive principle and the fundamental rights.
The right to hold impartial, free elections.
The legislative branch of government.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 32, 147, 142, and 136 outline the Supreme Court’s authority.
Authority of the High Court pursuant to Indian Constitutional Articles 226 and 227.
Article 14 of the Constitution
Parliamentary authority to modify the Constitution is limited.
The nation’s integrity and unity.
The policy of Socialism with Secularism.
Preamble of the constitution.
FACTS OF CASE
In 1970, the Central Government established a committee in accordance with Section 15 of the Industries Development Act, 1951, considering the notable decline in Minerva mill production which was in Bengaluru. In October 1971, the committee sent in its report to the Central Government. The National Textile Corporation Limited, an organisation established by the Industries Development Act of 1951, was given permission by the Central Government to assume control of the Minerva mills. Nationalisation was covered under the 39th Amendment’s ninth schedule, which was exempt from judicial scrutiny.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
Does the basic structural doctrine suffer from an insertion made in accordance with Articles 31C and 368 through Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976?
Does the Indian Constitution’s Fundamental Right take precedence over the State’s Directive Principle?
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER
Article 368 imposes restrictions on the parliament’s ability to change legislation. This amendment would give parliament the power to become the Constitution’s creator and ruler.
The Parliament lacks the ability to alter the fundamental provisions of the Constitution, according to the court ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
The State was obliged to enact legislation based on the Directive Principle of State policy, but it could only do so by legal methods; the Fundamental Rights could not be superseded.
The 42nd Constitutional modification Act, 1976, section 55, would prevent any court from reviewing a constitutional modification that the Parliament had approved, which would be detrimental to the balance between the Parliament and the Judiciary.
The directive principles of state policy and the fundamental rights would become unbalanced; thus, a harmonious structure is required.
The Directive Principles would be connected in one way or another to almost every law passed by the government.
Eradication of Article 19 and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution would result from providing immunity to the Directive Principle.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS
The Learned Attorney General maintained that public-interest legislation did not compromise the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
A law enacted in compliance with Article 38 of the Indian Constitution, according to the learned Attorney General, cannot be deemed to have destroyed the fundamental structure or revoked Fundamental Rights because Article 38 lists the social, political, and economic tenets upon which the structure is built.
The DPSP plays a significant role in the functioning of our nation, and any unintentional harm done to fundamental rights because of the program’s accomplishments does not violate the basic structure principle.
Laws that carry out the directive’s objectives or satisfy Article 38’s requirements are not regarded as violating fundamental freedoms, and as such, they do not contravene the fundamental structure.
Since the parliament has the unrestricted authority to amend the constitution under Article 368, the 42nd Amendment does not bring forth many significant changes.
The courts ought to keep out of the debate about the hierarchy of provisions because it is essentially an intellectual one.
JUDGEMENT BY SUPREME COURT
In declaring that the Parliament has the authority to change the Constitution, but only within its fundamental parameters and said the sections under the amendment are non-violative.
Justices A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam, and Chandrachud provided the majority opinion. A totalitarian regime would be established and democracy would be alienated.
according to the majority opinion, which argued for unrestricted authority to change the Constitution.
Judge Bhagwati provided the dissenting opinion, arguing that noncompliance would be unlawful and a betrayal of the people’s faith in the Constitution and that the Directive Principle of the Constitution should be upheld. Sections 5(b), 19(3), 21, 25, and 27 were all declared invalid by the court in dismissing the writ petition.
CONCLUSION
Following criticism of Justice Bhagwati’s ruling at the Supreme Court, judges acknowledged they were unable to examine one another’s conclusions. Parliament’s conceit in tampering with the Constitution was exposed when the court denied the government’s review petition to overturn the ruling.
FAQ’s
1. What is Doctrine of Basic Structure?
It states that no authority can change the constitution and its provisions. But in case if required the amendments should adhere to the foundation and the principles upon which are constitution rests.
2. Are there any similar case laws?
Kesavananda Bharti case, Indira Sawhney case, Golakhnath’s case.