9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971. 2. Whether the impugned Act violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution. 3. Whether the impugned Act is beyond the constituent power of Parliament. 4. Whether the impugned Act violates Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 21, and 31(1) and (2) of the Constitution. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 The writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, which repealed Articles 291 and 362, inserted Article 363-A, and substituted a new clause (22) for the original clause in Article 366. The petitioners argued that this amendment violated the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution, particularly the guarantees and assurances given to the Rulers of erstwhile Indian States. Issue 2: Whether the impugned Act violates the basic structure and essential features of the Constitution The petitioners contended that Articles 291 and 362 were integral parts of the constitutional scheme and their repeal damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. They argued that these articles guaranteed the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers, which were essential for the unity and integrity of India. The court, however, held that the repeal of these articles did not alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. The guarantees provided under these articles were political in nature and not legally enforceable, and their removal did not affect the Constitution's identity or character. Issue 3: Whether the impugned Act is beyond the constituent power of Parliament The petitioners argued that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to destroy its basic structure. The court referred to the Kesavananda Bharati case, which established that while Parliament has the plenary power to amend the Constitution, this power does not extend to altering its basic structure. The court concluded that the Twenty-sixth Amendment did not violate this principle as it did not change the fundamental character of the Constitution. Issue 4: Whether the impugned Act violates Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 21, and 31(1) and (2) of the Constitution The petitioners claimed that the amendment was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 21, and 31(1) and (2) of the Constitution. However, the court noted that Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 had been omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment, reducing the right to property to a legal right under Article 300-A. The court held that the amendment did not violate Article 14 as it treated all Rulers equally by withdrawing their privileges. The court also found no violation of Articles 21 and 31(1) and (2), as the amendment was in line with the principles of political and economic justice enshrined in the Constitution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, finding that it did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution or any fundamental rights. The writ petitions and connected interlocutory applications were dismissed.
|
