Author – Shanika Mishra student at Maa Vaishno Devi law College, Lucknow
The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 is a vital corner in the history of the constitution of India, telling about the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature in the terms of amending the Constitution. This correction was made to fight the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Golaknath case( 1967), which eased Parliament’s capability to amend abecedarian rights.
Background
The Golaknath Case (1967)
In I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court of India ruled that Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This decision was based on the interpretation that the amending power under Article 368 did not extend to altering the Fundamental Rights, as these rights were considered sacrosanct and beyond the reach of parliamentary amendments.
Two brothers Henry and William Golaknath living in Jalandhar, Punjab, had total land (property) of around “500 acres.
Both the brothers were told that they could only own at most 30 acres of land under the recently adopted Punjab security and land tenure act and that a part of the land would be assigned to tenants and the rest would be reckoned excess and would be under the control of the government.
The Golaknath brothers challenged the Punjab government’s actions, and the case eventually was taken to the Supreme Court in 1965.
The Golaknath family’s petition claims concerning the constitution’s permanence, which were enacted by the constitutional assembly, are inexact.Anybody should not have the power to amend or try to alter the Indian constitution, they said.
Golaknath brothers argued that the term “amendment” only refers to small rectifications that are in complete congruence with the constitution’s fundamental framework and does not relate to a completely new notion.
Furthermore, they argued that fundamental rights are unalienable, because fundamental rights were exposed to the public under Part III of the Indian Constitution, the government should overturn them.
Issues and Judgment:
The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case raised these crucial legal issues:
- Whether the parliament by law can amend the fundamental rights or not?
- Whether such an amendment is a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution?
- Authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution
In this case, the Supreme Court convened its largest bench ever at that time. The petitioners prevailed with a 6-5 majority, signifying a close but decisive ruling in their favor. Justices J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, and C.A. Vaidiyalingam, among others, authored the majority opinion. Justice Hidayatullah, concurring with Chief Justice Subba Rao, wrote a separate opinion. Justices R.S. Bachawat and V. Ramaswami contributed to the majority opinion, while Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava, and G.K. Mitter penned the minority dissent.
The majority opinion expressed skepticism about the current legislative trajectory, noting that since 1950, Parliament had used Article 368 to pass several laws that infringed on fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The majority raised concerns that if the Sajjan Singh precedent were followed, essential rights enshrined in the Constitution could be altered through amendments. They foresaw a potential shift from a democratic to an authoritarian India if fundamental rights were not preserved. Consequently, the majority overruled the precedents set by Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad.
Those supporting this decision believed the government should not have the power to amend the Constitution in ways that would undermine fundamental rights. They asserted that these rights are vital to the Constitution, comparing it to a “body without a soul” if deprived of them.
Opinions on the judgment:
Supportive Opinion:
Many legal scholars and human rights advocates lauded the judgment for its firm stance on safeguarding fundamental rights. They believed that by overruling the precedents set by Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court affirmed that fundamental rights form the core of the Constitution and must be protected against legislative encroachments. This view emphasizes the importance of judicial oversight to prevent the legislature from overstepping its bounds, thus maintaining a balance of power and ensuring that citizens’ basic freedoms are not subject to political whims.
Critical Opinion:
Critics of the judgment argue that the decision unduly restricts the legislative power of Parliament. They contend that elected representatives should have the authority to amend the Constitution, reflecting the will of the people. By limiting this power, the judiciary might be seen as overstepping its role, creating a potential for judicial activism. This perspective underscores the importance of a flexible Constitution that can adapt to changing societal needs and challenges, which may require legislative amendments to fundamental rights
Long-term Impact Opinion:
In the long term, this judgment is often hailed for setting a precedent that ensures the protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary amendments. It reinforced the concept that certain core principles of the Constitution are inviolable, contributing to the development of the basic structure doctrine in subsequent landmark cases. This opinion views the judgment as a cornerstone in the evolution of Indian constitutional law, emphasizing its role in shaping a resilient democratic ethos.
Each of these opinions reflects different facets of the judgment’s implications, showcasing the complexity and significance of the case in the annals of Indian constitutional history.
Consequences of the judgment:
Immediate Reactions:
The judgment on the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, which overturned the precedents set by Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad, sparked intense reactions across India’s political and legal landscape.
Political Repercussions:
The ruling was regarded as a setback by the ruling government, which saw it as a limitation on its legislative authority. This verdict highlighted the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional protocols, thereby intensifying the power struggle between the judiciary and the executive.
Opposition parties and civil society groups, on the other hand, accepted the decision. They viewed it as a victory for democracy and individual rights, reinforcing the idea that fundamental rights should not be easily amenable by the legislature.
Judicial Impact:
The decision set a significant precedent for future cases concerning constitutional amendments and the protection of fundamental rights. It laid the groundwork for the basic structure doctrine, which was later articulated in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.
The judgment affirmed the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that any amendment process respects the core values enshrined in it.
Long-term Consequences:
Basic Structure Doctrine:
The concept that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by any amendment was solidified. This doctrine became a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati case, which followed, explicitly outlined what constituted the basic structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, among others.
Strengthening Judicial Review:
The judgment reinforced the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to scrutinize amendments and acts passed by the legislature to ensure they do not violate fundamental rights or alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
This strengthened the checks and balances within the Indian political system, ensuring that no single branch of government could usurp excessive power.
Political Strategy and Constitutional Amendments:
Governments became more cautious in proposing constitutional amendments, knowing that the judiciary could nullify any changes that threaten the Constitution’s basic structure.
This led to a more deliberative and inclusive approach to constitutional amendments, involving broader consultation and debate.
Civil Rights Advocacy:
The judgment emboldened civil rights groups and activists, who saw it as a validation of their efforts to protect individual rights and freedoms.
It also inspired increased activism and legal challenges against laws and amendments perceived to infringe on fundamental rights.
Conclusion:
The judgment on the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act marks a pivotal moment in the annals of Indian constitutional law, with far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive. This landmark decision underscored the Supreme Court’s critical role as the guardian of the Constitution, tasked with ensuring that fundamental rights remain inviolable and beyond the reach of transient political majorities
The immediate reactions to the judgment highlighted the deep divisions in the political and legal communities. While the ruling government saw it as a curtailment of its legislative authority, opposition parties and civil society groups celebrated it as a triumph for democracy and the protection of individual rights. This judgment not only set a significant precedent but also reinforced the judiciary’s authority to review and potentially nullify constitutional amendments that threatened fundamental rights.
The judgment also significantly strengthened the principle of judicial review, empowering the judiciary to act as a check on legislative and executive actions. This has ensured a more balanced distribution of power and has prompted a more cautious and deliberative approach to constitutional amendments by successive governments. The judiciary’s ability to nullify amendments that violate the Constitution’s basic structure has fostered a more inclusive and consultative legislative process.
Finally, the judgment has become a cornerstone of legal education in India, shaping the curriculum and fostering a deeper understanding of constitutional principles among students and legal practitioners. The case’s discussions in academic and public forums have highlighted its importance and ensured that its implications continue to resonate in contemporary legal and political discourse.
In essence, the aftermath of the judgment on the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act has fortified the bedrock of Indian democracy by ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, strengthening judicial review, and fostering a more balanced and consultative legislative process. It remains a seminal case that continues to influence the interpretation and application of constitutional law in India.
FAQs:
1. Which case led to the 24th Constitutional Amendment?
The Golaknath case or Golaknath V. The State of Punjab 1967 case ruled by The Supreme court of India led to the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act.
2. Which case overruled the Golaknath case?
The Kesavananda Bharati case 1973 , the Supreme court overruled its judgment of the Golaknath case.
3. What was the bench and ratio of The Golaknath case?
The decision of the case was made by the bench of 11 judges with the majority ratio of 6:5.
4. Who won the Golaknath case 1967?
The majority of the 11 judges bench supported the arguments of the petitioner with the ratio of 6:5.
Sources
Golaknath V. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643; 1967 SCR (2) 762.
Summary of the case
Referred case
Shri Shankri Prasad Deo V. Union Of India AIR 1951 SC 458, 1951 SCR 89
Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan 1965
