1973 (4) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act.
2. Validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act.
3. Validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act.
4. Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act:

The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, aimed to achieve several results, including inserting an express provision in Article 368 to indicate that the source of the amending power will be found in that Article itself, making it obligatory on the President to give his assent to any Bill duly passed under that Article, and substituting the words "amend by way of addition, variation or repeal" in place of the bare concept of "amendment" in Article 368. It also made explicit that when Parliament makes a Constitutional amendment under Article 368, it acts "in exercise of its constituent power," and expressly provided by amendments in Articles 13 and 368 that the bar in Article 13 against abridging or taking away any of the fundamental rights should not apply to any amendment made under Article 368.

The petitioner contended that while Parliament could validly amend Article 368 to transfer the source of amending power from List I entry 97 to Article 368, the amendments covered by (iii) and (iv) above, if construed as empowering Parliament to exercise the full constituent power of the people themselves, and as vesting in Parliament the ultimate legal sovereignty of the people, and as authorizing Parliament to alter or destroy all or any of the essential features, must be held to be illegal and void. Similarly, the amendment covered by (v) must be held to be illegal and void if construed as authorizing Parliament to damage or destroy the essence of all or any of the fundamental rights.

The Court held that the 24th Amendment did not enlarge the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution in a manner that would abrogate fundamental rights or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendment of Article 13(2) does not go beyond the limits laid down because Parliament cannot even after the amendment abrogate or authorize the abrogation or taking away of fundamental rights. Thus, the 24th Amendment was held valid as interpreted by the Court.

2. Validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act:

Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, substituted Clause (2) of Article 31 with a new clause that provided that no property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for acquisition or requisitioning of the property for an amount which may be fixed by such law or determined in accordance with such principles and given in such manner as may be specified in such law. It further provided that no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the amount so fixed or determined is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash.

The petitioner argued that this amendment violated the fundamental right to property by allowing the amount fixed for compensation to be inadequate and by removing judicial review of the adequacy of compensation. The Court held that while the amendment allowed for the determination of compensation in a manner specified by law, it did not abrogate the fundamental right to property. The amendment was within the amending power of Parliament as it did not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, Section 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment was held valid.

3. Validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act:

Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, inserted Article 31C, which provided that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Article 39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19, or 31, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy.

The petitioner contended that this amendment violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 31 by allowing laws to be enacted that could take away or abridge these rights without judicial review. The Court held that while the amendment aimed to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy, it could not abrogate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The amendment was held to be valid to the extent that it did not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act:

The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, inserted the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, into the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, thereby protecting these Acts from being challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.

The petitioner argued that this amendment violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution by protecting laws that could potentially violate these rights. The Court held that while the Ninth Schedule was intended to protect laws aimed at agrarian reforms from being challenged on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, it could not be used to protect laws that destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendment was held to be valid to the extent that it did not protect laws that abrogated fundamental rights or destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to the extent that they did not abrogate fundamental rights or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.