24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 – India's Constitutional Milestone

24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 – Restoring Parliament’s Power

The 24th Amendment Act of 1971 was a significant turning point in Indian constitutional history. Passed by Indira Gandhi’s government, this amendment overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Golaknath Case (1967) and restored Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.

This amendment played a crucial role in the conflict between parliamentary supremacy and judicial review, eventually leading to the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) and the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The Constitution of India has been amended over 100 times since its adoption in 1950, but few amendments have been as significant as the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971. This amendment marked a crucial turning point in Indian constitutional law, fundamentally changing how Parliament could modify our fundamental rights and the Constitution itself.

To understand why this amendment was so important, we need to go back to the late 1960s when a major conflict arose between Parliament and the Supreme Court over who had the ultimate power to interpret and modify the Constitution.

The Background: The Golaknath Case Crisis

What Happened Before 1971?

In the early years after independence, Parliament had been freely amending various parts of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, to implement social and economic reforms. However, in 1967, everything changed with a landmark Supreme Court case called I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab.

The Golaknath Judgment: A Game Changer

The Golaknath case involved a dispute over land reforms and property rights. The Supreme Court, in a historic 6:5 majority decision, made several groundbreaking declarations:

1. Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights: The Court ruled that Parliament did not have the power to amend Part III of the Constitution, which contains our fundamental rights like right to equality, freedom of speech, and right to life.

2. Constitutional amendments are "law" under Article 13: The Court declared that constitutional amendments fall under the definition of "law" mentioned in Article 13, which states that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void.

3. Fundamental rights are permanent: The judgment suggested that fundamental rights were so sacred that only a new Constituent Assembly could modify them, not the regular Parliament.

Why This Created a Crisis

This judgment created a constitutional deadlock because:

• Social reforms were blocked: The government couldn't implement important land reforms and other social justice measures that required modifying property rights.
• Parliament felt powerless: Elected representatives felt their democratic mandate to make laws was being undermined.
• Administrative confusion: Various laws and policies were left in legal limbo.

The ruling essentially meant that if the government wanted to implement any policy that conflicted with fundamental rights, they would need to create an entirely new constitution through a new Constituent Assembly - an extremely cumbersome and impractical process.

Enter the 24th Amendment: The Solution

When and How It Came About

Faced with this constitutional crisis, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government decided to take decisive action. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 was passed by both houses of Parliament and came into force on November 5, 1971.

The amendment had a clear purpose: to restore Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, and to overturn the Golaknath judgment.

Key Provisions of the 24th Amendment

1. Amendment to Article 13

The most important change was the addition of a new clause to Article 13. The amendment clearly stated that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments. This meant that constitutional amendments could no longer be challenged simply on the ground that they violate fundamental rights.

In simple terms, if Article 13 was like a security guard that stopped any law from entering if it violated fundamental rights, the 24th Amendment created a special VIP pass for constitutional amendments to bypass this security check.

2. Strengthening Article 368

Article 368 deals with Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The 24th Amendment strengthened this article by explicitly stating that:

• Parliament has unlimited power: Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• No exceptions: There are no parts of the Constitution that are beyond Parliament's amending power.
• Clear authority: The amendment removed any ambiguity about Parliament's constitutional authority.

3. Making Presidential Assent Mandatory

Before this amendment, there was some debate about whether the President could refuse to give assent to constitutional amendment bills. The 24th Amendment made it crystal clear that:

• President must give assent: When both houses of Parliament pass a constitutional amendment bill, the President is obligated to give his assent.
• No discretionary power: The President cannot use his discretion to reject constitutional amendment bills.
• Automatic process: This made the constitutional amendment process more streamlined and predictable.

The Political and Legal Context

Why This Amendment Was Necessary

1. Implementing Social Justice: The government needed to implement land reforms and other socialist policies that required modifying property rights.

2. Bank Nationalization: The government wanted to nationalize banks, which required constitutional changes that might affect fundamental rights.

3. Removing Princes' Privileges: The government aimed to abolish privy purses and privileges of former rulers, which needed constitutional amendments.

4. Democratic Supremacy: There was a belief that elected representatives should have the ultimate authority to shape the Constitution according to people's needs.

The Debate: Democracy vs. Judicial Review

The 24th Amendment sparked an intense national debate:

Supporters argued:

• Parliament represents the will of the people
• Elected representatives should have the power to adapt the Constitution to changing times
• Social and economic reforms require flexibility in constitutional interpretation
• The Golaknath judgment was too restrictive and impractical

Critics worried about:

• Potential abuse of power by Parliament
• Erosion of fundamental rights protections
• Need for some constitutional provisions to remain permanent
• Importance of judicial review as a check on legislative power

Impact and Consequences

Immediate Effects

1. Restored Parliamentary Supremacy: Parliament regained its confidence and ability to amend the Constitution freely.

2. Enabled Social Reforms: The government could now proceed with land reforms, bank nationalization, and abolition of privy purses.

3. Legal Clarity: The constitutional amendment process became clearer and more predictable.

4. Cleared Legal Backlog: Various pending cases and policy decisions could now move forward.

Long-term Constitutional Development

The 24th Amendment set the stage for several important developments:

1. More Amendments: It paved the way for the 25th Amendment (1971) and 26th Amendment (1971), which dealt with property rights and privy purses respectively.

2. Kesavananda Bharati Case: The amendment ultimately led to the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Supreme Court developed the "Basic Structure Doctrine."

3. Balance of Powers: It initiated a long-term dialogue between Parliament and the judiciary about their respective roles.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: An Unintended Consequence

What Happened Next

While the 24th Amendment gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution, this situation didn't last long. In 1973, just two years later, the Supreme Court struck back with the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The Basic Structure Compromise

The Basic Structure Doctrine created a middle path:

• Parliament can amend: Parliament retained the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• But with limits: However, amendments cannot alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
• Core principles protected: Certain fundamental features like democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial review are considered part of the basic structure and cannot be destroyed.

This doctrine essentially said: "Parliament, you can change the Constitution, but you cannot change its soul."

Criticisms and Debates

Arguments Against the Amendment

1. Too Much Power: Critics argued that giving unlimited power to Parliament could lead to authoritarianism.

2. Fundamental Rights at Risk: There were fears that future governments might misuse this power to erode civil liberties.

3. Judicial Independence: Some worried that reducing the Supreme Court's power would weaken the separation of powers.

4. Minority Rights: Concerns were raised about protection of minority rights if Parliament had unchecked power.

Arguments in Favor

1. Democratic Legitimacy: Parliament represents the people and should have the authority to make necessary changes.

2. Practical Governance: Rigid constitutional provisions can hinder effective governance and social progress.

3. Adaptability: Constitutions need to evolve with changing times and social needs.

4. Social Justice: The amendment was necessary to implement policies for social and economic equality.

International Perspective

How Other Countries Handle This Issue

Different countries have different approaches to constitutional amendments:

• USA: Has a very rigid amendment process, making changes extremely difficult.
• UK: Has an unwritten constitution that Parliament can change easily.
• Germany: Has some provisions that cannot be amended at all (eternity clauses).
• South Africa: Allows amendments but requires different procedures for different types of changes.

India's approach, especially after the 24th Amendment and subsequent Basic Structure Doctrine, represents a unique middle path.

Modern Relevance

Why This Amendment Still Matters Today

1. Constitutional Flexibility: It allows the Constitution to adapt to modern challenges like technology, environmental issues, and changing social values.

2. Social Justice: It enables policies for affirmative action, welfare schemes, and economic reforms.

3. Legislative Efficiency: It prevents constitutional gridlock when important reforms are needed.

4. Democratic Evolution: It allows each generation to shape their constitutional framework within limits.

Current Debates

Even today, the balance between parliamentary power and constitutional protection remains relevant in discussions about:

• Privacy rights in the digital age
• Environmental protection vs. development
• Reservation policies and social justice
• Economic reforms and property rights

Lessons Learned

What the 24th Amendment Teaches Us

1. Balance is Key: Neither absolute parliamentary power nor complete judicial supremacy is ideal.

2. Dialogue Matters: The amendment shows how different branches of government can engage constructively to resolve constitutional crises.

3. Flexibility with Limits: Constitutions need to be adaptable but also need some permanent core principles.

4. Democratic Process: Major constitutional changes should involve broad consultation and debate.

Conclusion

The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 stands as one of the most significant constitutional changes in India's history. It resolved a major crisis between Parliament and the Supreme Court, restored legislative confidence, and enabled important social and economic reforms.

While the amendment gave Parliament seemingly unlimited power to amend the Constitution, the subsequent development of the Basic Structure Doctrine created a balanced framework that continues to guide Indian constitutional law today.

The amendment reminds us that constitutions are living documents that must evolve with society while preserving their fundamental character. It shows how democratic institutions can adapt and find solutions to seemingly intractable problems through dialogue, debate, and compromise.

Today, as India continues to face new challenges and opportunities, the principles established by the 24th Amendment - the need for constitutional flexibility balanced with protection of core values - remain as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that in a democracy, the Constitution belongs to the people, and their elected representatives must have the power to shape it according to changing needs, while ensuring that its fundamental spirit remains intact.

The story of the 24th Amendment is ultimately a story about democracy itself - how it can evolve, adapt, and strengthen itself through institutional dialogue and constitutional wisdom. It represents not just a legal change, but a commitment to the idea that in a democratic society, the Constitution must serve the people, and the people must have the power to make it work for them.