Case No. Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970

Bench: 13 Judge Bench, 7:6 Ratio.

Majority Judge Opinion:

Chief Justice S. M. Sikri

J. M. Shetal

K. S. Hegd

A. N. Grover

P. Jaganmohan Reddy

D. G. Palekar

H. R. Khanna

A. K. Mukherjee

Y. V. Chandrachud.

Dissenting Opinion:

A.N. Ray

K.K. Mathew

M.H. Beg

S.N. Dwivedi

Facts:

• Relevant Section: Article 31 of the Constitution of India.
• The Basis structure of the constitution was challenged.
• Section 2,3,6,7,8 (1), 18, 29, and 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Constitution of India, Section 29(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Contract Act.
• The Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution were contested in this case. The petitioner made an application for permission to bring additional grounds and decide based on the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1971.
• On November 5, 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act became effective. The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 were inserted into the Constitution’s Ninth Schedule as an outcome of the Twenty-ninth Amendment.
• The Constitutional Bench heard the matter and referred it to a large bench to decide whether the challenged constitutional revisions were legal.

 

ISSUES:

• The primary issue revolved around whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution or whether there are certain “basic features” that cannot be altered.
• Whether I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab rightly decided or not?
• The case deliberated on the extent of the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution apart from Article 13(2)?
• The case addressed the role of the judiciary in reviewing constitutional amendments and whether the courts have the authority to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Issues regarding the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary, and whether amending the Constitution could infringe upon this principle?
• The case raised questions about the supremacy of the Constitution and whether it could be subject to arbitrary changes by the Parliament.
• Whether amendments could undermine the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens?

ARGUMENTS:

Petitioner:

• The Petitioner contended that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and unlimited. Instead, it is subject to certain limitations, and the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in any manner it wishes.
• Drawing from the precedent set by Justice Mudholkar in the case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, the petitioner argued that the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments. This implies that there are certain fundamental features of the Constitution that are beyond the reach of the amending power of Parliament.
• The portioner pleaded for the protection of their property rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. This article guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property as a fundamental right, and the petitioner argued that any amendments violating this right would be unconstitutional.
• The petitioner argued that the 24^th and 25^th Constitutional Amendments violated the Fundamental Right provided under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. These amendments, by their nature, infringed upon the freedom guaranteed to citizens, as fundamental rights are enshrined to ensure liberty and protection from arbitrary state action.
• By emphasizing the importance of Fundamental Rights as the bedrock of democratic freedoms, the petitioner highlighted that any constitutional amendment that undermines these poses a threat to the Constitutional liberties enjoyed by the citizens.  
• The petitioner argued to maintain the balance of power between the government and the people, emphasizing that any constitutional changes should not undermine the basic principles of the Indian Constitution.

 

Respondent:

• The State argues that the foundational principle of the Indian Legal System is the supremacy of Parliament. According to this principle, Parliament upholds unlimited power to amend the Constitution as it deems necessary.
• The State argued that unrestricted amending power is necessary to fulfil socio-economic obligations outlined in the Preamble, ensuring the welfare of Indian citizens.
• Unlimited amending power allows Parliament to adapt laws to evolving societal needs, promoting effective governance.
• The State maintained that limitations on amending power would contradict the Constitutional mandate to pursue socio-economic justice.
• Upholding unlimited amending power underscores the democratic nature of Indian governance, where elected representatives wield authority on behalf of the people.

ANALYSIS:

• The majority bench, comprising Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and six other justices, established that Parliament possesses the authority to amend any provision of the Constitution to fulfil socio-economic obligations delineated in the Parliament. However, this authority is circumscribed by the stipulation that amendments must not tamper with the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution.
• Rendered on April 24, 1973, the case represents a seminal juncture in Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, elucidating the bounds of Parliament's amending prerogative. 

JUDGEMENT:

• The apex court upheld the 24^th, 25^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendments in its entirely with a unanimous vote of 13 judges.
• However, it discerned the first segment of the 25^th Constitutional Amendment Act as intra vires (valid), while deeming the second segment ultra vires (invalid). It conclusively determined that Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution, provided such amendments do not impinge upon its basic structure, thereby establishing the Doctrine of Basic Structure as a guiding principle for Constitutional amendments.