24th amendment of the constitution of india

history

Submitted by:
Mannem srinivas gowd
Roll no: 2013066
Semester-2

________________________________________________________
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Visakhapatnam

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is done as a semester project, as a part of course titled 24 th
amendment of the constitution of india. I am really thankful to our
course instructor
Dr.Viswachandra Nath Madasu, Professor,
Department of history, DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL
LAW UNIVERSITY, for his valuable guidance and assistance, without
which the accomplishment of the task would have never been possible.
I also thank him for giving this opportunity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Abstract4
2.Introduction. 5
3.background of the 24th amendment of the constitution of india.5
4.proposal and enactment of the act 6
5.ratification of the act..9
6.reception.10
7.conclusion12
8.bibilography.12

ABSTRACT

The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known

as The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, enables
Parliament

to dilute Fundamental Rights

through Amendments of the

Constitution . It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament

has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further
made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution
Amendment Bill was presented to him

INTRODUCTION

Twenty-fourth amendment of constitution of india enables parliament to dilute

fundamental rights through amendments of the constitution, and empowers it to
emend any provision of the constitution. Also makes it obligatory for the president
to give his assent, when a constitution amendment bill is presented to him. The 24 th
amendment was enacted by the congress government which was then headed by
INDIRA GANDHI, to abrogate the supreme court ruling in Golaknath V. state of
Punjab The judgment reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had
upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III
related to Fundamental Rights. The judgment left Parliament with no power to
curtail Fundamental Rights. To abrogate the ruling, the government intended to
amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any
provision of the Constitution,

Fundamental Rights within the scope of its

amending procedure, and preventing review of those changes by the courts. The
24th Amendment came into force on 5 November 1971. The Indian press
Characterized the 24th Amendment as being too sweeping in its ambit, and of
dubious legality. The Amendment was also opposed by jurists, and all surviving
members of the Constituent Assembly at the time. The Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the 24th Amendment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of 1Kerala in 1971.

Background of the 24th amendment of the constitution of india:

The 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling
in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a
majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the
Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368is
"law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an
amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it
1 R.C. Bhardwaj, ed. (01). Constitution Amendment in India (Sixth ed.). New Delhi: Northern Book Centre
5

is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this
clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void." The Court also ruled that
Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a
"transcendental position" under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of
Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature
of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or
impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III 2. The judgment reversed the Supreme
Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of
the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement
left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. To abrogate the ruling,
the government intended to amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament
has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, thereby bringing
Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure

Proposal and enactment of the 24th amendment of constitution of india

The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971 (Bill No. 105 of 1971) was
introduced in the Lok Sabha on 28 July 1971 by H.R. Gokhale, then Minister of
Law and Justice. The Bill sought to amend articles 13 and 368 of the
Constitution. The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the
bill is given below: The Supreme Court in the well-known Golak Nath's case [1967,
2 S.C.R. 762] reversed, by a narrow majority, its own earlier decisions upholding
the power of Parliament to amend all parts of the Constitution including Part III
relating to fundamental rights. The result of the judgment is that Parliament is
considered to have no power to take away or curtail any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution even if it becomes necessary to do so for
giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy and for the attainment of the
2 "Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process"a pdf. Lok Sabha Secretaria
6

objectives set out in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is, therefore, considered
necessary to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of
the Constitution so as to include the provisions of Part III within the scope of the
amending power. The Bill seeks to amend article 368 suitably for the purpose and
makes it clear that article 368 provides for amendment of the Constitution as well as
procedure therefor. The Bill further provides that when a Constitution Amendment
Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the President for his assent,
he should give his assent thereto. The Bill also seeks to amend article 13 of the
Constitution to make it inapplicable to any amendment of the Constitution under
article 368. The Bill was considered by the Lok Sabha on 3 and 4 August, and
passed, in the original form, on 4 August 1971.As many as 41 amendments were
proposed to the bill during the debate in the Lok-Sabha, however, all were rejected
While moving the bill for consideration in the Lok Sabha, Gokhale stated that the
fear that Parliament would "misuse the power to curtail Fundamental Rights once it
acquired the power to amend them, was unfounded." Gokhale further stated
that Directive Principles must prevail over Fundamental Rights, in case of conflict
between the two. Union Education Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray stated that
allowing judgements like that in the Golaknath case would have "disastrous
consequences". Congress member Amrit Nahata stated that the fear that the
amendment

would

lead

to

dictatorship

was

"unfounded".

Congress

member Darbara Singh felt that "the attitude of the Supreme Court must change
with the times". Union Steel Minister Mohan Kumaramangalam claimed that the
Supreme Court had failed to understand the true spirit of the Constitution and the
significance of the Directive Principles. He further claimed that there was "inbuilt
conservatism" in the judiciary because of the "class" to which the judges belonged
to. A.K. Gopalan, leader of the Communist Party (Marxist) (CPM), supported the
bill during the debate in the Lok Sabha on 3 August. Gopalan stated that the present
Constitution was a "bundle of contradictions", and further reiterated his party's view
that it should be changed completely as it was framed by "representatives of
princely houses and big business". Madhu Dandavate of the Praja Socialist
Party stated that, as a "committed radical socialist", he fully supported the bill. Atal
7

Bihari Vajpayee, then leader of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, suggested holding a
referendum to determine the question of curtailment of Fundamental Rights.
Vajpayee felt that curtailing the liberties of the people, in order to bring economic
changes, would lead to a loss of political freedom. He further stated that the
Supreme Court was not opposed to enlarging Fundamental Rights. He further
expressed that the curtailment of certain rights, which were the basis of democracy,
would lead to totalitarianism. Anglo-Indian representative Frank Anthony, stated
that he would not oppose the amendment, if it did not curtail articles 26, 29 and 30
which relate to the rights of religious minorities. Anthony deplored the "rancour"
displayed during the debate, and reminded the House that Parliament was only a
creature of the Constitution and that it was the latter that was supreme. Anthony
further expressed regret at what he called "a direct attempt by some ruling party
members to intimidate the Supreme Court through a tirade of vilification and force
it to toe the ruling party's line". Haribhai M. Patel of the Swatantra Party, deplored
"the government's attack on the founding fathers of the Constitution", who he
described as "men of vision". Patel reminded the House that the Supreme Court had
never struck down any law which sought to enforce a Directive Principle. Tridib
Chaudhuri of the Revolutionary Socialist Party felt that the right to property should
not be a fundamental right. However, he stated that other Fundamental Rights
should be treated as sacrosanct, and must not be curtailed. In response to critics of
the amendment, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi claimed, "we are committed to the
upholding of the fundamental freedom - of assembly and of worship - and our
commitment to secular democracy is non-negotiable". The Bill, as passed by the
Lok Sabha, was considered by the Rajya Sabha on 10 and 11 August and passed on
11 August 1971. The debate in the Rajya Sabha was brief. Congress member
Babubhai Chinai stated that the amendment gave more than ordinary legislative
power to Parliament, and the government's claim that the proposed amendment
would only restore the pre-Golaknath judgement situation was incorrect. Bharatiya
Jana Sangh member J.P. Yadav stated that the government was creating an illusion
that the Golaknath judgement impeded all progressive measures. CPM member S.S.
Sanyal favoured a new Constitution and a new Constituent Assembly. The bill
8

received assent from then President Varahagiri Venkata Giri on 5 November 1971. It
was notified in The Gazette of India and came into force on the same day.

ratification of the act

The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution,
and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of
the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below:
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Haryana
3. Himachal pradesh
4. Jammu & kashmir
5. Kerala
6. Madhya pradesh
7. maharastra
8. nagaland
9. tamilnadu
10. uttar pradesh
11. west Bengal

the states which did not ratify it are:

1. assam
2. bihar
9

3. gujarat
4. mysore
5. orrisa
6. punjab
7. rajasthan

Reception

The majority of the editorials in the Indian press characterised the 24 th Amendment
as being too sweeping in its ambit, and of dubious legality. One editor dubbed Part
III as "un fundamental rights", stating that it would be better if Part III is openly
erased and Part IV completely adopted, as that would "be as straightforward way of
ushering in communism instead of by the colourable exercise of non-existing
Legislative Power".the hindu, in its editorial on 6 August 1971, stated, "All change
and growth whether political or biological, have to conform to the basic laws of
their province, or otherwise such growth would soon be found to be cancerous and
self destructive. And even if certain urgently needed socio-economic changes call
for a cribbling and cabining of the right property, the sweeping power conferred on
Parliament by the 24th Amendment to tamper with all the rights, including the right
to freedom of association and of religion, are such that it is not surprising that some
leaders of minorities and some 'committed' socialists have been alarmed over the
grim possibilities." In a 1971 editorial on the amendment, the statesman wrote, "The
implications are breath-taking. Parliament now has the power to deny the seven
freedoms, abolish Constitutional remedies available to citizens, and to change the
federal character of the Union. Legal expert V.G. Ramachandran, writing in the
Supreme Court Cases Journal (cite: (1971) 2 SCC (Jour) 11) in 1971, stated that the
24th and 25thAmendments were not "tinkering" with the Constitution, but "a
veritable slaughter of the Constitution". Ramamchandran further stated that the
amendments lowered the prestige of the legislature as well as the Judiciary.
10

Supporting the Fundamental Rights, Ramamchandran wrote, "When our founding

fathers forged this Constitution they were well aware of the social and economic
urges in the country. But they were anxious that the progress must be gradual and
stable and not revolutionary. That is why they envisaged the rights to be
fundamental in Part III subject to reasonable restrictions in public interest. They
further enunciated in Part IV the Directive Principles of State Policy which may be
translated into reasonable restrictions of the rights in Part III by law from time as
conditions justified them. Changes made overnight during national poverty only
increase poverty when there is no corresponding effort at production and increase of
wealth. It is equally true that social and economic conditions cannot be improved
merely by legislation. It would appear that the people who looked for a Utopia are
being fed by a spate of legislation conferring legislative Power. For whose benefit is
this? Is it for the political party in power or for the people? .Ramamchandran argued
that making Parliament supreme would not ease the difficulties of the people, and
that what really mattered to the common man was how Parliament would protect
him in the matter of safeguarding his Fundamental Rights. He further questioned the
Congress government's claim that Parliament had unlimited power to amend the
Constitution, asking, "where was this 'Constituent Power' when Article 368 was
originally framed? If it did not reside in Parliament, then, how can it come in now;
if it had that power even then in 1948-50, how was it that Article 368 did not
expressly say so?" Ramachandran believed that even if the amendments were
upheld by the court, it would not be justifiable to call the present Constitution as
amended by the 24th and 25th Amendments as the Constitution of India, and it
should instead be called "The Government of India Act, 1971 3."mohammedali
currim chagla, former Chief Justice of the Bombay high court, opposed the 24th
Amendment stating that any threat to Fundamental Rights was a threat to
democracy.[6] Former attorney-general M.C.setalvad described the 24th Amendment
as "a complete negation of the rule of law", and stressed that apart from its effect on
the Indian people, the amendment endangered government itself. [9] Renowned
jurists and kasturiranga santhanam and nanabhoy palkhivala also opposed the
3 V.G. Ramachandran. "The Constitution 24th Amendment Act And 25th Amendment Bill"pdf.
11

amendment. The 24th Amendment was also opposed by B.shiv rao., Frank Anthony
and all surviving members of the constituent assembly. The 24th Amendment
received little attention from the general public at the time of its enactment, as their
attention was focused on tense relations between india and pakisthan due to the
ongoing Bangladesh liberation war, which later led to the indo-paki war.

Conclusion

The 24th Amendment was the first of a series of measures taken by Indira Gandhi to
increase her power, and establish one-party rule. It was followed by several
constitutional amendments designed to weaken the judiciary, and enhance the
authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister's office

bibilography
[1]. G. G. Mirchandani . Subverting the Constitution. Abhinav Publications

[2]. Austin, Granville . Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian

Experience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
[3].http//.constitution.org

12