1964 (10) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964
2. Scope and effect of Article 368 of the Constitution
3. Impact of the amendment on Article 226
4. Legislative competence of Parliament regarding land legislation
5. Retrospective validation of laws by Parliament
6. Applicability of Article 13(2) to constitutional amendments
7. Fundamental rights and their amendability under Article 368

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964:
The six writ petitions challenged the validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, which added several Acts to the 9th Schedule, claiming it was constitutionally invalid. The petitioners argued that the impugned Act did not follow the procedure prescribed by the proviso to Article 368, making it invalid.

2. Scope and Effect of Article 368 of the Constitution:
Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It requires a bill to be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. If the amendment affects provisions listed in the proviso, it also requires ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures. The Court emphasized that the fundamental rights in Part III are not included in the proviso, allowing Parliament to amend them without following the additional procedure.

3. Impact of the Amendment on Article 226:
The petitioners contended that the amendment of fundamental rights would affect the powers of the High Courts under Article 226. The Court held that if the effect on Article 226 is indirect or incidental, the proviso to Article 368 does not apply. The impugned Act did not directly change Article 226 and thus did not require the additional procedure.

4. Legislative Competence of Parliament Regarding Land Legislation:
The petitioners argued that the impugned Act was essentially land legislation, which falls under the jurisdiction of State Legislatures. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Act aimed to validate State agrarian reforms by protecting them from challenges based on fundamental rights, not to legislate on land.

5. Retrospective Validation of Laws by Parliament:
The petitioners claimed that the Act was unconstitutional because it retrospectively validated laws declared invalid by courts. The Court dismissed this argument, affirming that legislative and constituent powers include the authority to enact laws with retrospective effect.

6. Applicability of Article 13(2) to Constitutional Amendments:
The Court revisited the argument from Sankari Prasad's case, which held that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments. The Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that Article 368 allows for the amendment of all constitutional provisions, including fundamental rights, without being constrained by Article 13(2).

7. Fundamental Rights and Their Amendability Under Article 368:
The Court discussed whether fundamental rights are immutable and beyond the reach of amendments. It concluded that Article 368 confers a broad power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a dynamic document, and its provisions, including fundamental rights, can be amended to meet the changing needs of society.

Separate Judgments:

Hidayatullah J.:
Hidayatullah J. agreed with the majority that the 17th Amendment did not require the special procedure under the proviso to Article 368. He expressed doubts about the reasoning in Sankari Prasad's case regarding the exclusion of constitutional amendments from the scope of Article 13(2) and reserved his opinion on this matter.

Mudholkar J.:
Mudholkar J. concurred with the dismissal of the petitions but expressed reservations about the exclusion of constitutional amendments from Article 13(2). He emphasized the need to consider whether the basic features of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, are amendable under Article 368.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, dismissing the petitions. The Court reiterated that Article 368 provides broad powers to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, without being constrained by Article 13(2). The separate judgments highlighted differing views on the scope of Article 13(2) and the amendability of fundamental rights.