EMERGENCY

1 ST CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT
● ADDED TWO NEW CLAUSE TO ARTICLE 31 i.e. A AND B .
● CLAUSE A- IF ANY LAW IS PASSED FOR LAND REFORM THEN ARTICLE
31 IS NOT APPLICABLE.
● CLAUSE B - A NEW SCHEDULE THAT IS 9TH SCHEDULE WAS ADDED
AND ANY LAW PASSES BY EITHER STATE OR CENTRAL LEGISLATUE
THEN HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT CANNOT HAVE JUDICIAL
REVIEW.
● IN ARTICLE 15 ADDED CLAUSE 4 - IF STATE PASSES A LAW GIVING
SPECIAL PROVISIONS TO SC/ST/ OTHER BACKWARD AND WEAK
CLASSES THEN PROVISIONS CANNOT BE CHALLENGED UNDER
ARTICLE 14,15,16(RIGHT TO EQUALITY)
ARTICLE 13 V/S ARTICLE 368
● CLAUSE 2 OF ARTICLE 13 SAYS “STATE WILL NOT MAKE SUCH LAWS
WHICH RESTRICT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS” AND IF SUCH LAW IS MADE
THEN IT WILL BE VALID ONLY TO THAT EXTENT TILL ITS NOT
HARMING/RESTRICTING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
● CLAUSE 3 OF ARTICLE 13 DEFINES LAWS IN CLAUSE 2 OF ARTICLE
13 .IT SAYS “LAW INCLUDES:ACT,ORDINANCE,RULES AND
REGULATION,BYLAWS ,CUSTOMS THAT ENFORCES
LAW,NOTIFICATION,ETC,
● BUT NO WHERE IT IS WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT
ACT(ARTICLE 368).
SHANKARI PRASAD V/S UNION OF INDIA
● THE VALIDITY OF 1ST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (1951)
WHICH CURTAILED THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY WAS
CHALLENGED IN SHANKARI PRASAD CASE.
● SUPREME COURT IN ITS VERDICT SAID ARTICLE 368 IS NOT A
PART OF ARTICLE 13
● THAT MEANS PARLIAMENT CAN RESTRICT THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT VIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT(UNDER
ARTICLE 368).
4TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT
17 TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT
● 17 TH AMMENDMENT MADE SUCH PROVISIONS THAT MADE IT EASY
FOR GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AWAY LAND OF BIG LAND LORDS.
● ALSO SOME LAND REFORM ACTS OF PUNJAB,RAJASTHAN,AND
OTHER STATES WERE INCLUDED IN 9TH SCHEDULE.
● AGAINST IT IN 1965, A SAJJAN SINGH CASE AND IT ASKED ABOUT
RELATION BETWEEN ARTICLE 13 AND 368
● SUPREME COURT UPHOLD THE VERDICT IN SHANKARI PRASAD CASE.
GOLAKHNATH VS UNION OF INDIA (1967)
● IT WAS ALSO AGAINST 17TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT
● AGAIN THE SAME QUESTION WAS RAISED WHAT IS THE RELATION
BETWEEN ARTICLE 13 AND 368.
● 11 JUDGES BENCH OF SUPREME COURT WAS FORMED TO HEAR IT
● WITH 6:5 THE BENCH DECIDED THAT ARTICLE 368 IS NOT FREE FROM
ARTICLE 13 MEANS BY CONS. AMMD. ACT PARLIAMENT CANNOT
RESTRICT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
WHY MOOD OF SUPREME COURT CHANGED ?
RISE OF INDIRA GANDHI
 10 POINTER PROGRAMME OF INDIRA
GANDHI (TILT TOWARDS LEFT IDEOLOGY)
TWO PARTS OF CONGRESS
BANK NATIONALISATION PROGRAM
● INDIRA GANDHI PASSED A LAW IN PARLIAMENT TO NATIONALISE THE
BANKS WITH ASSESTS MORE THAN 50 CRORE .
● IT WAS ANNOUNCED WITHOUT INFORMING MORARJI DESAI
● AFTER THE LAW WAS PASSED R.C COOPER WENT TO SUPREME
COURT AGAINST THE LAW ON THE GROUND OF COMPENSATION AND
RIGHT TO EQUALITY
● SUPREME COURT GAVE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF R.C COOPER AND
THE LAW BECAME NULL AND VOID
PRIVY PURSES
● ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTION ,RULERS OF PRINCELY STATE WERE
GIVEN MONEY FOR THEIR EXPENDITURE KNOWN AS PRIVY PURSES.
● INDIRA GANDHI WANTED TO END THESE PRIVY PURSES SO SHE
CAME UP WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT IN CONSTITUTION
BUT IT WAS NOT PASSED IN RAJYASABHA.
● SO VIA PRESIDENT SHE PASSED A ORDER THAT CHANGED THE
DEFINATION OF RULERS IN CONSTITUTION AND STOPPED PRIVY
PURSES
● AGAINST THIS MADHAV RAO SINDHIYA WENT TO SUPREME COURT
AND COURT MADE THE ORDER NULL AND VOID
1971 ELECTIONS
POWERFUL PM V/S POWERFUL JUDICIARY
24 TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT

● IT WAS DONE TO NULLIFY GOLAKHNATH JUDGEMENT

● IT WAS WRITTEN IN CONSTITUTION THAT ARTICLE 13 AND

ARTICLE 368 ARE DIFFERENT
25 TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT

ITS PURPOSE WAS BANK NATIONALISATION

● IF A LAW IS PASSED IN FAVOUR OF ARTICLE 39B AND 39C THEN IT
CANT BE CHALLENGED UNDER ARTICLE 14,15,19
● AND IT REPLACED THE WORD “COMPENSATION” WITH “AMOUNT” IN
ARTICLE 31.
26TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT
● IT DELETED ARTICLE
● REDEFINED THE DEFINATION OF RULERS
29TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT
KESHVANAND BHARTI CASE
THE OPPORTUNITY THAT COURT WANTED?
VERDICT OF KESHVANAND BHARTI CASE
● IT UPHELD CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT ACT 24,25,26,29.

● BUT IT SAID THAT EVEN PARLIAMENT CAN AMMEND ANY PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION BUT THE AMMENDMENT IS ONLY VALID TILL THE EXTENT
IT DOES NOT HARM THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION AND
KEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF BASIC STRUCTURE WITH ITSELF.

● SO THE DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE WAS DEVELOPED

ROAD TO EMERGENCY
● JUDICIARY V/S GOVERNMENT
● 1971 INDO-BANGLADESH WAR
● FINANCIAL PROBLEMS DUE TO WAR
● RISE IN VALUE OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
● RISE IN THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL(OIL CRISIS )
● 1972-73 FAMININE
● RISE IN POVERTY
EVENTS OF 1973-74

● GUJRAT

● BIHAR

● RAILWAY STRIKE
12TH JUNE 1975(WORST DAY OF INDIRA’S LIFE)
● LOST GUJRAT ELECTIONS

● ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

● DEATH OF THE PRINCIPAL SECTRETARY D.P DHAR

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT
● IT WAS JUDGEMENT OF INDIRA GANDHI V/S SHIV RAJ NARAIN
● OUT OF 14 ALLEGATIONS 2 ALLEGATIONS WERE FOUND TO BE
CORRECT
● COURT FOUND INDIRA GUILTY MADE HER ELECTION FROM RAI
BAREILLEY NULL AND VOID
● ACCORDING PRA 1951 PROVISIONS UNDER CLAUSE 123 [7] AND PRA
1951 8[A] SHE WAS DEBARRED FROM CONTESTING ELECTIONS NEXT
6 YEARS AND ELECTION WAS DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
● HER POLITICAL LIFE WAS IN TROUBLE
SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT(23RD JUNE 1975)

INDIRA WENT TO COURT FOR ABSOLUTE STAY ON HC ORDER.IT WAS

SUMMER VACATION BENCH HEARING UNDER JUSTICE V.K KRISHNA IYER.

COURT DENIED ABSOLUTE STAY BUT GAVE PARTIAL STAY TO INDIRA

GANDHI SUCH THAT SHE CAN REMAIN PM BUT CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN
LOK SABHA PROCEEDINGS.

THIS WAS A SET BACK TO INDIRA.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF EMERGENCY( 25 JUNE 1975)

● JP RALLY AND APPEAL TO INDIAN ARMED

FORCES,POLICE,GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO NOT FOLLOW
GOVERNMENTS ORDER.

● SAME NIGHT INDIRA MEETS PRESIDENT ,HE SIGNS THE PAPERS OF

EMERGENCY ,AFTER THAT ALL THE LIGHTS OF PRESS ARE CUT OFF.
● EMERGENCY WAS DECLARED
WELCOME TO A DARK CHAPTER IN INDIAN
DEMOCRACY
AFTER EMERGENCY WAS DECLARED
● PRESS CENSORSHIP
● OPPOSITION LEADERS ARRESTED
● FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SUSPENDED
● HERBEAS CORPUS CASE(ADM JABALPUR VS SHIVAKANT SHUKLA)
● PROTESTS BANNED
● DILUTION OF BASIC DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTION
● MASS FORCED STERLIZATION
38TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT

● THE ORDINANCES DECLARED BY

PRESIDENT ,GOVERNOR WERE MADE OUT OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
● ALSO IT MADE PROVISION THAT DECLRATION OF
EMERGENCY UNDER ARTICLE 352,356,360 IS OUT OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
AMMENDMENT IN RPA 1951 AND ELECTION LAWS ACT
39TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT
● ARTICLE 71
● ARTICLE 329-A : DISPUTES OF PM/SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA TO BE
DECIDED BY AUTHORITY MENTIONED IN 329-B AND ACTION BY THESE
AUTHORITY CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY COURTS
(RESTROSPECTIVELY)
● ADDED RPA 1951 AND ELECTION LAWS AMMENDMENT ACT 1975 TO
9TH SCHEDULE
● MISA ACT TO NINTH SCHEDULE
● COFEPOSA TO NINTH SCHEDULE
42ND CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT(MINI CONSTITUTIO N)

● NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTAL ACT

● SOCIALIST,SECULAR,INTEGRITY ADDED TO PREAMBLE
● TRANSFER OF POWER FROM STATE TO CENTRAL GOVT.
● RAISED TENURE OF LOK SABHA AND STATE LEGISLATIBVE ASSEMBLIES
FROM 5 TO 6 YEARS
● PROVIDED THAT LAWS MADE UNDER DPSP CANNOT BE DECLARED INVALID
BY COURT
● EMPOWERED PARLIAMENT TO MAKE LAWS TO DEAL WITH ANTI NATIONAL
ACTIVITIES AND SUCH LAWS ARE TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
● CURTAILED WRIT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS
43RD CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT

● RESTORED THE JURIDICTION OF THE SUPREME

COURT AND HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW AND ISSUE OF WRITS
● DEPRIVED THE PARLIAMENT OF ITS SPECIAL
POWERS TO MAKE LAWS DEAL WITH ANTI-SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES
44TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT
● RESTORED THE ORIGINAL TERM OF LOK SABHA AND STATE LEGISLATURE (5 YEARS)
● GAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPER OF THE REPORTS
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN STATE LEGISLATURE AND PARLIAMENT
● EMPOWERED THE PRESIDENT TO SEND BACK ADVIVE OF THE CABINET FOR
RECONSIDERATION .BUT THE RECONSIDERED ADVICE WAS MADE BINDING ON PREZ
● DELETED PROVISION THAT MADE SATISFACTION OF PREZ , GOVERNORS SATISFACTORY
● REPLACED INTERNAL DISTURBANCE BY ARMED REBELLION
● MADE PREZ DECLARE EMERGENCY ONLY ON THE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OF
CABINET
● MADE RIGHT TO PROPERTY A LEGAL RIGHT
● ARTICLE 21 AND 20 CANNOT BE SUSPENDED DURING EMERGENCY
● OMITTED PROVISIONS THAT TOOK AWAY COURTS BPOWER TO DECIDE ELECTION DISPUTE
OF PREZ,GOVERNOR,PM,LOK SABHA SPEAKER
MINERVA MILLS CASE,1980
VAMANRAO CASE,1981