Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine of Indian Constitution

Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India

Coram: H.J. Kania, C.J., M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, S.K. Das and N.  Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.

Citation: 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89

Decided on: 05.10.1951

Facts:

• The erstwhile ruling government, with majority in Centre and several states, had planned to carry out certain measures of agrarian reforms in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh by enacting legislation which may be collectively be referred to as Zamindari Abolition Act.
• Certain zamindars, feeling aggrieved, challenged the validity of those Acts stating that they violate the rights conferred upon them by Part III of the Indian Constitution.
• The High Court of Patna held that the legislation passed in Bihar was unconstitutional.
• Whereas, the High Courts of Allahabad and Nagpur upheld the validity of the legislations passed in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively.
• Meanwhile, to put an end to this judicial chaos, the Parliament came up with the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951.
• It validated the Zamindari Abolition laws and limited the scope of the fundamental right to property.
• It further introduced Articles 31 A and 31 B in the Constitution to validate the measures which were in question.
• In reply, the Zamindars brought the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution questioning the Amendment Act itself as unconstitutional and void,which resulted in the present case.

Questions:

• Whether the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951 passed by the Parliament was ultra vires the Constitution.
• Whether the Parliament can amend the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

Decision of the Court:

• The apex court ruled that the Parliament is well within in its rights to amend the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights by virtue of Article 368.
• The top court upheld the measures pertaining to land reforms which were undertaken by the government.
• The reason behind so was given that it does not take away any right of the High Court to enforce any right enlisted in Part III of the Constitution by issuing writs under Article 226. Neither does it take away the similar powers from the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 136.
• The court held Articles 31 A and 31 B to be constitutionally valid.
• The court opined that even though the ‘Land’ is a subject matter of the State List, only the Parliament holds thepower to enact constitutional amendments.
• Thereby, the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951 was held to be constitutional.
• The petitions were failed and dismissed with costs.

I.C. Golaknath &Ors v State of Punjab

Coram:K. Subba Rao, C.J., K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, R.S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, J.M. Shelat, Vishishtha Bhargava, G.K. Mitter, C.A. Vaidyalingam, JJ.

Citation: 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762

Decided on:27.02.1967

Facts:

• Petitioner owned huge masses of land, measuring over 500 acres in the state of Punjab.
• The State of Punjab passed a legislation, Punjab Security and Land tenures Act, 1953.
• The petitioner was informed by the State that he can keep only 30 acres of land and the rest of it would be treated as surplus.
• Also, the said Act was put in the ninth schedule by the 17^th Constitutional Amendment, 1964.
• Petitioner challenged thisbefore the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
• He contended that their rights under Article 19 were infringed.
• He also challenged the 17^th Constitutional Amendment, stating that it was ultra vires the Constitution.
• The bench comprised of eleven judges.
• It was the largest ever bench to be constituted by that time to adjudicate upon any case

Questions:

• Whether the Parliament holds the power to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
• Whether the term ‘law’ provided in Article 13 of the Constitution covers Constitutional Amendments in its ambit.

 Decision of the Court:

• The Supreme Court reversed its previous ruling and stated that a Constitutional Amendment is an ordinary ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.
• Thus, any Constitutional Amendment which would be found in infringement of the Fundamental Rights would be declared void by the virtue of Article 13 of the Constitution.
• The court had stated that Article 368 of the Constitution only provides for the procedure to amend the Constitution and it does not impart any power to the Parliament to amend it.
• The Court held that Article 248 of the Constitution, which provides for residuary power of the Parliament, grants it the power to amend the Constitution.
• As law comes out to be the product of Article 248, thereby, the Supreme Court held that aConstitutional Amendment is ‘law’ for the purposes of Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• The Court said that the Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights.
• It stated that a new Constituent Assembly would be required to amend the fundamental rights as they have been awarded a transcendental position in the Constitution.
• Thus, the Court stated that the Fundamental Rights have a permanent place in the Indian Constitution and cannot be amended.

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru&Ors v State of Kerala

Coram: S.M. Sikri, C.J., J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekhar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea, Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461

Decided On:24.04.1973

Facts:

• The State of Kerala passed a legislation Kerala Land reforms Act, 1963, which was further amended in 1969.
• This was being done in furtherance of the State’s motive to strike a socio-economic balance in the society.
• The Union Government placed it in ninth schedule along with its amending act through 29^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972.
• His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, head of a mutt in Kerala, moved to the Supreme Court as certain lands belonging to the mutt were to be acquired by the state government by virtue of the said laws.
• He challenged this under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31.
• Also, after the landmark judgment of Golaknath was passed, the Union government started trying to overpass its ruling.
• In its pursuit, the Parliament passed 24^th, 25^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendments.
• All of these amendments were in question in the present case.
• A thirteen-judge bench was constituted in the present case in order to check the correctness of Golaknath judgment passed by a bench of eleven judges.

Questions:

• Whether the 24^th, 25^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendments were constitutional.
• What was the extent up to which the Parliament could exercise its amending powers?

Decision of the Court:

• The decision in the case of Golaknath was overruled.
• The 24^th Constitutional Amendment was held to be valid. It was observed that there is a difference between an ordinary law and a constitutional law.
• It was held that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 did not include the constitutional law. Thus, making it clear that an amendment brought under Article 368 can very well amend a fundamental right or even take it away.
• Article 368, as amended, was held to be valid by the Court with an exception that the said article does not confer any kind of power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
• However, the amendment of Article 368(4) excluding the judicial review of a constitutional amendment was held to be ultra vires the Constitution.
• The first part of the 25^th Constitutional Amendment was held to be constitutional and the second part, which denied the possibility of a judicial review, was held to be unconstitutional.
• The court came up with the very famous Doctrine of Basic Structure
• The Court held that the Parliament can amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights as far as the amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The 29^th Constitutional Amendment was held to be valid.

Minerva Mills v Union of India

Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailsam, P.N Bhagwati, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789

Decided On: 31.07.1980

Facts:

• The Parliament passed The Sick Textile Undertaking (Taking of over management) Act, 1974 on 24^th December, 1974.
• The said legislation was enacted with a view to provide general public commodities at fair prices and to recover sick textile undertaking.
• Minerva Mills was a textile industry engaged in mass production of silk clothes in the state of Karnataka.
• Being doubtful about the conduct of the mill, the Union government appointed a committee under Industries Development and Regulation Act,1951.
• On the basis of the report of the committee, the Union government ordered the National Textile Corporation Limited to take over the management of the Minerva Mills on the ground that its management of affairs was not catering to the public interest.
• By that time, Nationalization Act, 1974 was already inserted into the ninth schedule by the Parliament through 39^th Constitutional Amendment, 1975.
• By virtue of 39^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975, it was made sure that Nationalization Act, 1974 was kept out of the scope of judicial review.
• By virtue of 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, it was made sure that no constitutional amendment could be questioned on any ground in the courts of law (Section 55 of the amendment) and primacy should be given to Directive Principles of State Policy over the Fundamental Rights of the individuals (Section 4 of the amendment).
• 42^nd Constitutional Amendment prevented the petitioner from challenging the aforementioned aspect of the 39^th Constitutional Amendment.

Question:

• Whether the Sections 4 and 55 of the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 were constitutionally valid.

Decision of the Court:

• The Court observed that Section 55 of the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment made it impossible for the judiciary to adjudicate upon the validity of any constitutional amendment.
• It observed that Section 55 of the said amendment provides the Parliament with an unfettered power to amend the Constitution, whose specific aim was to free the Parliament from the restrictions put on it by the Kesavananda Bharti case.
• Because of the said reasons, the Supreme Court held Section 55 of the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 as invalid.
• Section 4 of the said amendment was held to be invalid as it destroyed the very basic structure of the Constitution.
• Therefore, the Court held both the Sections 4 and 55 of the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 to be unconstitutional.