The Bench by a majority of 7-6 Overruled the proposition of law propounded in I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 and held that Constitutional amendment is not “law” within the meaning of Article 13 and that although no part of the Constitution, including Part III comprising of fundamental rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution” could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.”
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 1973 INSC 91, AIR 1973 SC 1461, MANU/SC/0445/1973
Art 13, Art 14, Art 21, Basic Structure, Constitution, Constitutional Amendment
None
Facts
Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 be declared un-constitutional, ultra vires and void.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 was passed and the petitioner filed an application for permission to urge additional grounds and to impugn the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1971 which was allowed.
The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act came into force in 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force in 1972. The effect of the Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following Acts in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution - The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971.
When the case was placed before the Constitutional bench, the same referred this case to a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned Constitutional amendments.
Legal Issue
Whether the Constitution can be amended through Constitutional (Amendment) Acts?
Holding
The decision was narrowly passed by a vote of 7:6, with seven judges supporting the view that the Indian Constitution can be amended like other statutes to meet the socio-economic needs of the State. They observed that while fundamental rights are guaranteed to citizens, these rights cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments. They emphasized that the basic structure of the Constitution must remain intact. Conversely, the six dissenting judges believed that Parliament should not have unrestricted power to amend the Constitution.
Ratio
By focusing on the Basic Structure Doctrine, it was held that although amendments in the Constitution are allowed such amendments must not alter its fundamental framework. It was asserted that the core principles of the Constitution should remain intact even when other parts are modified.
Facts
Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 be declared un-constitutional, ultra vires and void.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 was passed and the petitioner filed an application for permission to urge additional grounds and to impugn the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1971 which was allowed.
The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act came into force in 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force in 1972. The effect of the Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following Acts in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution - The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971.
When the case was placed before the Constitutional bench, the same referred this case to a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned Constitutional amendments.
Legal Issue
Whether the Constitution can be amended through Constitutional (Amendment) Acts?
Holding
The decision was narrowly passed by a vote of 7:6, with seven judges supporting the view that the Indian Constitution can be amended like other statutes to meet the socio-economic needs of the State. They observed that while fundamental rights are guaranteed to citizens, these rights cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments. They emphasized that the basic structure of the Constitution must remain intact. Conversely, the six dissenting judges believed that Parliament should not have unrestricted power to amend the Constitution.
Ratio
By focusing on the Basic Structure Doctrine, it was held that although amendments in the Constitution are allowed such amendments must not alter its fundamental framework. It was asserted that the core principles of the Constitution should remain intact even when other parts are modified.