9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. 2. Validity of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. 3. Validity of the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act. 4. Validity of Article 31B of the Constitution. 5. Validity of Article 31C of the Constitution. 6. Validity of the Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976. 7. Validity of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976: The primary issue was whether Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 transgress the limitations on the amending power of Parliament as held in Keshavananda Bharati. The court held that the amendments introduced by Sections 4 and 55 damage the basic structure of the Constitution by destroying its essential elements. Section 4 amended Article 31C to provide that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed void on the ground of inconsistency with Articles 14, 19, or 31. Section 55 inserted sub-sections (4) and (5) in Article 368, which declared that no amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground and that there shall be no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The court found these provisions unconstitutional as they transgress the limitations on the amending power and damage the basic structure by removing judicial review and allowing Parliament to amend the Constitution without any limitations. 2. Validity of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974: The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, and the order dated October 19, 1971, under which the management of Minerva Mills Ltd. was taken over. The court did not delve into the merits of this challenge at this stage but focused on the broader constitutional issues. 3. Validity of the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act: The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, which inserted the impugned Nationalisation Act as Entry 105 in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution. This raised questions regarding the validity of Article 31B, which the court proposed to deal with in another batch of petitions. 4. Validity of Article 31B of the Constitution: The court held that Article 31B, which provides that none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the 9th Schedule shall be deemed to be void on the ground of inconsistency with any of the fundamental rights, was valid. However, it was clarified that amendments to the 9th Schedule made after April 24, 1973, would be open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution. 5. Validity of Article 31C of the Constitution: The court examined whether the amendment to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment, which extended the protection to laws giving effect to any of the Directive Principles, was valid. It was held that the amendment damaged the basic structure of the Constitution by making fundamental rights subordinate to the Directive Principles. The court emphasized that the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles were essential features of the Constitution. 6. Validity of the Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976: The petitioners argued that the Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976, which included certain laws in the 9th Schedule, was invalid as the Lok Sabha was not in existence at the time of its enactment. The court found that the Lok Sabha was validly extended by the House of People (Extension of Duration) Act, 1976, which was enacted during the operation of a Proclamation of Emergency. 7. Validity of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976: The court held that clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, were unconstitutional as they removed all limitations on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and deprived the courts of their power to review constitutional amendments. The court emphasized that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated. Conclusion: The court declared Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, to be beyond the amending power of Parliament and void. It upheld the validity of Article 31B and the unamended Article 31C but struck down the amendment to Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment. The court also upheld the validity of the Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976, and emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
|
