Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FINAL DRAFT
1|P ag e
Table of Contents
2|P ag e
Table of Authorities CasesA. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras(1950)7 Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India(1951)....10 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan(1965)8 I.C.Golak Nath v. State of Punjab(1967)...15 Marbury v. Madison(1803).7 I.R.Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu(2007)......18 Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal and Other(1967).8 Bribery Commission v. Ranasinghe(1965)..9 McCawley v. The King(1920).........9 Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India(1971)9 In re Delhi Laws(1951)......12 In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves Reference Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India(1960)12
3|P ag e
FACTS
The petitioner filed a writ petition 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, as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. He further prayed for an appropriate writ or order to issue during the pendency of the petition. The Supreme Court issued rule nisi on March 25, 1970.During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 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. In the meantime, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated April 26, 1971 in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala [1972] S.C.C. 364 (Civil Appeals Nos. 143, 203-242, 274 & 309 of 1971). Judgment dated April 26, 1971 upheld the majority judgment of the Kerala High Court in V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala AIR1971Ker98 whereby certain, sections of the Act were struck down.The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on November 5, 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on April 20, 1972 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force on June 9, 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: y y The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969). The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971).
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. The Court accepted the appeal and referred the matter to a larger constitutional bench.
4|P ag e
Arguments Advanced :
A. Construction of Article 13 as it stood before 24th Amendment i. Constitutional amendment whether under Article 368 or otherwise, was law within Article 13(2) and was void to the extent it contravened Fundamental Rights; ii. Article 368 did not prevail over or override Article 13
1. It is a misconceived argument that Art 13(1) and (2) is redundant and, therefore, the question whether Parliament can abridge Fundamental right by constitutional amendment should be decided without reference to Art 13(2). The observations of Kania,C.J. in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras1 (same has been asserted by Marshall, C.J. in Marbury v. Madinson2 the fact that there is a written Constitution means there is the power of judicial review with the Courts) "... the inclusion of article 13 (1) and (2) in the Constitution appears to be a matter of abundant caution. Even in their absence, if any of the fundamental rights was infringed by any legislative enactment, the Court has always the power to declare the enactment, to the extent it transgresses the limits invalid", has been stated by Hidayatullah, J. in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan3 as not clear in its meaning, to explain the same he said
A.I.R 1950 SC 88 at p. 100 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.), 2 L.Ed. 60
5|P ag e
The four aspects are dealt by Article 13 as follows: The bar imposed is against the State, i.e., totality of all forces of the State including statutory corporations and autonomous authorities [See Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal & others4] All categories of law are covered by the bar from the highest ( constitutional amendments) to the humblest (bye-laws); and all executive orders and notifications All laws in force under Article 372 and all laws to be brought into force at any future date are brought within the scope of the bar The effect is to render the law void. 2. The preamble makes it clear that the object of the Constitution is to secure the basic human freedoms, and this security or guarantee would be meaningless if the legislature against whom the guarantee operate is itself at liberty to abrogate the guarantee. 3. The decisions of the Privy Council in McCawley v. The King5, and The Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe6, established that constitutional amendment is a law, whether it is a sovereign Legislature under an uncontrolled Constitution (legislature can amend by law-making procedure any part of the Constitution as if it were a statute).
6|P ag e
(1971) 3 SCR 9
7|P ag e
A.I.R. 1951 SC 458, para 13 at p. 463 See Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. III, pp. 399 to 436 10 Ibid at p. 416
8|P ag e
9|P ag e
14 15
10 | P a g e
stated it is the Constitution which we are interpreting gentlemen and not any ordinary
law, Art 31 B must be read keeping in view Art 31 A and Art 31 C. Art 31 A , Art 31 B and Art 31 C are provided for under the heading Saving of Certain Laws and Art 31 A and newly inserted Art 31 C by the 25th Amendment clearly deals with property laws (alone), so there is no reason why Art 31 B must not be confined only to the property laws. It cannot be looked upon as a generalized provision. Article 31 B starts with without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31 A and with without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Part III, this means there is reasonable relation or nexus between the two provisions and in relation to this Article 31 B must be read down.
Conclusion :
Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties Abraham Lincoln
As early as in 1951, Patanjali, J. in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar18 held that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act19 which sought to introduce Art 31 A, Art 31 B and the Ninth Schedule are valid and constitutional. Again in 1964 when the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act20 was challenged in
17 18
Supra n.2 Supra n.8 19 Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 20 Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act,1964
11 | P a g e
Even, Mudholkar, J. in his judgment expressing doubts regarding the amending power stated
Before I part with this case I wish to make it clear that what I have said in this judgment is not an expression of my final opinion but only an expression of certain doubts which have assailed me regarding a question of paramount importance to the citizens of our country : to know whether the basic features of the Constitution under which we live and to which we owe allegiance are to endure for all time - or at least for the forseeable future - or whether they are no more enduring than the implemental and subordinate provisions of the Constitution.Both the judges however, clearly mentioned in the case that their opinion should not be considered to be the final opinion on the question. Subsequently, in the year 1967 when a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution for a direction that the Constitution (First Amendment)23 Act, Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act24, Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act25, insofar as they affected their fundamental rights were unconstitutional and inoperative, in I. C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab26, Subba Rao, C.J. speaking for himself and four other judges (Shah, J., Sikri, J., Shelat, J. and Vaidilingam,J.) stated that
"Fundamental rights" are the modern name for what have been traditionally known as "natural
rights" and held that fundamental rights cannot be amended, but this holds to be erroneous because fundamental right cannot be equated with any other right be it legal right, moral right or for that matter human right. The basic idea for having fundamental rights in any Constitution is
21 22
Supra n. 3 Supra n. 3 , para 47, p. 862 23 Supra n. 19 24 Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 25 Supra n. 20 26 A.I.R. 1967 SC 1643
12 | P a g e
himself, Bhargava,J. and Mitter,J..Bachawat.J.and Ramaswami,J. concurred by their separate judgment with the view expressed in the leading minority judgment. It would be necessary to bring into light at this point that however the Court would have not upheld the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act itself in Sankari Prasads27 case because of these reasonsy Constitution (First Amendment) Act itself was not necessary because Art 31 A, Art 31 B as well as the Ninth Schedule would have been justified in terms of the provisions of original Article 31, clauses (4) and (6) because most of the acts which were saved in 1951 by Art.31B and the Ninth Schedule were in fact expressly saved by Art. 31,clauses (4) and (6). y Harmonious Construction applied is not based on a firm ground, the Court does not states clearly at what ground and how they are harmonizing Art 13(2) and Art 368. y Court states that Although "law" must ordinarily include constitutional law but still they keep Constitutional amendment outside the purview of law as defined under Art 13(3). Moreover the words used here are very ambiguous in nature. In Sajjan Singh28 the Court refrained from considering the correctness of the decision in Sankari Prasads case29, this was where the second folly of the Court laid because the number of unconstitutional laws which were sought to be protected by the Ninth Schedule increased from 13 to 57 and this shows that Court did a mistake while upholding the validity of the Ninth Schedule in Sankari Prasad30 itself because of the number of reasons provided for above and most importantly because it was against the Constitutional scheme, this is where the argument that under a controlled Constitution a law prohibited by constitutional limitations can yet be passed as a constitutional amendment because a particular political dispensation, which has a
27 28
13 | P a g e
Supreme Court in the earlier decisions discussed above. The Courts in the earlier two cases however stated that the fundamental rights can be amended but did not come out clearly as to the scope and extent . It is evident from the judgments delivered by Patanjali, J. and Gajendragadkar, J. that their decision was based keeping in mind the socio-economic situation prevalent in the country. This becomes important here to bring to notice that Art 19 (1) (f) provided for right to property and there was reasonable restriction provided in cases of public interest, any law made abolishing zamindari laws would have easily been justified in terms of this reasonable restriction read with Art 31(1) and Art 39 (b) and (c) but the Constitution (First Amendment) Act33 became necessary due to the interpretation of the word compensation as just compensation by the Supreme Court34, the Parliament refrained from doing so because of the economic condition of the country at that point of time and as it is well known and was also pointed out by Hidayatullah, J. in Golak Naths35 case In our country amendments so far have been made only with the object of negativing the Supreme Court decisions. These judgments of the Supreme Court where the laws were struck down because they did not provide for just
Supra n. 26 Supra n. 26 33 Supra n. 19 34 State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee and Others [1954] S.C.R. 678 35 Supra n. 26
32 31
14 | P a g e
36 37
15 | P a g e
The inclusion of amendment within definition of word law provided for in the Art 13 (3) will put a check on the Parliament so that they cannot affect the supremacy of the Constitution in any manner be it through Constitutional Amendment itself and Ninth Schedule be struck down and if not then clear pronouncement be made that it is confined to property laws itself.
Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 A.I.R 2007 SC 28 43 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 SC 1461 44 ibid 45 Constitution (Twenty-Ninth) Amendment Act, 1972
42
41
16 | P a g e