Facts

Six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970, under Article 32 of the Constitution 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 (Act 1 of 1964) as amended by   the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. He further prayed for an appropriate writ or order be issued during the pendency of the petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971) was passed which received the assent of the President on August 7, 1971. 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 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971). The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force on June 9, 1972 which placed both the Amendment Acts in   the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. The petitioner then moved an application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the above constitutional amendments which was allowed and a larger bench constituted to decide whether I. C. Golak Nath v.  State of Punjab  [(1967)   2 SCR 762 : AIR 1967 SC 1643 : (1967) 2 SCJ 486] was rightlydecided or not.

View

It was the claim of the Respondents that the Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations     or unions, and freedom of religion. They  claimed that  democracy can  even  be replaced and one party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set  up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368. It was claimed by    the Petitioners that the power of Parliament is much more limited and that the Constitution gave the Indian citizens freedoms which were to subsist for ever and

the Constitution was drafted to free the nation from any future tyranny of the representatives of the people.

Held

Judgment in Golak Nath case AIR 1967 SC 1643/(1967) 2  SCR 762/(1967) 2  SCJ 486] was overruled. Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The Constitution (Twenty- fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, is valid. Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid. The first part of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, is valid. The second part, namely, “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” is invalid. The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid.

Editorial: Judgement passed by 13 Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Full Bench). The Hon’ble Bench constituted to review the Judgement was dissolved without passing of a written order. Also known as the ‘fundamental rights case’, the Judgement is widely recognised as a watershed moment in the development of constitutional jurisprudence of India. Eleven separate Judgements were passed by the Hon’ble  Judges and case was decided with a narrow majority   of one; Views of seven Hon’ble Judges to prevailed over views of six Hon’ble Judges.

“The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by

the still small voice of conscience.”

– Mahatma Gandhi