Swaran Singh Committee

The Swaran Singh Committee of 1976 is one of the most significant committees in the constitutional history of India. Constituted during the Emergency period (1975–1977) by the government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, it was tasked with recommending comprehensive constitutional amendments to make the Indian Constitution more effective, centralized, and adaptable to contemporary challenges. The committee was chaired by Sardar Swaran Singh, a senior Congress leader and former Union Minister.

Its recommendations became the foundation of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution” because of the far-reaching changes it introduced. While some recommendations of the committee were appreciated, many were heavily criticized for weakening democracy by concentrating power in the hands of the Executive and Parliament.

In this detailed blog post, we will cover:

The background of the Swaran Singh Committee
Its objectives and purpose
Key recommendations
Implementation through the 42nd Amendment
Criticisms and controversies
Impact on Indian democracy
Its significance in modern constitutional development

Background of the Swaran Singh Committee

In June 1975, a National Emergency was declared under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, citing threats to national security and internal disturbances. The period of Emergency (1975–1977) was marked by the suspension of civil liberties, press censorship, and significant political unrest.

During this period, the Indira Gandhi-led government believed that the existing constitutional framework limited the government’s ability to maintain law and order and implement its policies effectively. To address this, the Swaran Singh Committee was formed in 1976 with the mandate to:

Review the working of the Constitution
Recommend amendments to strengthen the Parliament and the Executive
Safeguard national unity and sovereignty
Introduce new provisions to make citizens responsible for the nation’s growth

This committee’s report became the foundation for the 42nd Amendment, which brought sweeping changes to the Constitution.

Objectives of the Swaran Singh Committee

The Swaran Singh Committee was formed by the Government of India in 1976 during the period of Internal Emergency (1975–1977) under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The committee was headed by Sardar Swaran Singh, a senior Congress leader and former Union Minister, and its primary purpose was to recommend changes to the Indian Constitution.

The committee’s recommendations became the foundation for the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, popularly called the “Mini-Constitution” because of the extensive changes it introduced. The primary objective of setting up the committee was to strengthen the central government, make the Constitution more effective, and introduce certain new obligations for citizens.

Below are the key objectives of the Swaran Singh Committee explained in detail:

1. To Strengthen the Power of the Central Government

One of the main objectives was to concentrate more powers in the hands of the Union Government. The committee believed that for India’s unity, sovereignty, and security, the central government must be given greater authority, especially during times of national crisis or internal disturbances.

2. To Introduce Fundamental Duties of Citizens

The committee strongly felt that while citizens enjoyed Fundamental Rights, they should also have certain responsibilities toward the nation. It recommended the inclusion of a separate list of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution to ensure that every citizen contributes to national unity, integrity, and discipline.

3. To Protect National Integrity and Unity

Another key objective was to safeguard India’s sovereignty and maintain national integrity. The committee proposed specific provisions to ensure that no one misuses the right to freedom of speech and expression or acts in ways that threaten the unity of the country.

4. To Make the Constitution More Effective

The committee aimed to make the Constitution stronger and more efficient by suggesting several amendments that would:

Reduce delays in decision-making
Give more legislative and executive powers to the Union
Make it easier for the government to implement national policies without legal obstacles

5. To Limit Judicial Interference

The Swaran Singh Committee wanted to reduce the Judiciary’s power to review Constitutional Amendments and government decisions. It recommended provisions to ensure that Parliament’s supremacy remained intact in certain matters, especially during an Emergency.

6. To Recommend Restrictions on Fundamental Rights

The committee suggested certain restrictions on Fundamental Rights, particularly freedom of speech, association, and property rights, to ensure that these rights are not misused against national interests.

7. To Prepare the Ground for the 42nd Constitutional Amendment

The recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee directly led to the passing of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which brought far-reaching changes such as:

Addition of Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)
Strengthening the powers of the central government
Limiting the powers of the judiciary
Giving precedence to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) over Fundamental Rights

The Swaran Singh Committee was a landmark step in shaping India’s constitutional framework during the Emergency period. Its primary objective was to empower the central government, introduce Fundamental Duties, protect national integrity, and streamline governance. However, many of its recommendations, when implemented through the 42nd Amendment, were criticized for reducing democratic freedoms and weakening the balance of power between the Legislature, Judiciary, and Executive.

In essence, the committee played a pivotal role in India’s constitutional history by laying the foundation for significant changes, some of which still impact Indian democracy today.

Recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee

The Swaran Singh Committee was set up by the Government of India in 1976, during the period of the Internal Emergency (1975–1977), under the leadership of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Headed by Sardar Swaran Singh, a senior Congress leader and former Union Minister, the committee was tasked with reviewing the Indian Constitution and suggesting changes to make it more effective, stronger, and better suited to meet national challenges.

The recommendations of the committee became the foundation of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution” because of the extensive changes it brought to the Indian constitutional framework.

Below are the key recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, explained in detail in simple language:

1. Inclusion of Fundamental Duties

One of the most significant recommendations of the committee was the introduction of Fundamental Duties for citizens.

The committee believed that while the Constitution gave people Fundamental Rights, citizens must also have certain obligations toward the nation.
It recommended the addition of a separate list of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution to ensure discipline, unity, and a sense of responsibility among citizens.
Based on this recommendation, Part IVA was added to the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment, introducing Article 51A, which lists 10 Fundamental Duties.

2. Strengthening the Powers of the Central Government

The committee recommended granting more powers to the Union Government to ensure national security and integrity. It suggested empowering the central government to intervene in matters of national importance and make decisions that ensure unity and sovereignty. This recommendation aimed to prevent states from acting independently in ways that could weaken India’s federal structure.

3. Restricting Fundamental Rights

The committee suggested imposing reasonable restrictions on certain Fundamental Rights to ensure that they are not misused against the nation’s interests.

It proposed that freedom of speech and expression should not allow activities that threaten national integrity and sovereignty.
It also recommended allowing Parliament to impose restrictions on rights whenever necessary for the security of the nation.

4. Giving Primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)

The committee recommended giving Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) precedence over Fundamental Rights whenever there is a conflict between the two.

The idea was to ensure that the government could implement welfare-oriented policies without facing constant legal challenges based on Fundamental Rights.
This recommendation was implemented through the 42nd Amendment, which strengthened the importance of DPSPs in shaping government policies.

5. Limiting Judicial Review

The committee suggested reducing the powers of the Judiciary to review Constitutional Amendments and government decisions.

It recommended that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution should be absolute and beyond judicial challenge.
This was intended to prevent the courts from interfering in government policies and constitutional changes, thereby strengthening Parliament’s supremacy.

6. Creation of a New Chapter on the Emergency Provisions

The committee emphasized the need for stronger Emergency provisions to maintain law and order during crises.

It supported granting the President and Union Government greater powers during emergencies to ensure national security.
This recommendation influenced amendments that made it easier for the government to declare and continue an Emergency, as seen in the 42nd Amendment.

7. Addition of Special Provisions to Protect National Integrity

The committee recommended adding specific provisions to protect India’s sovereignty and integrity.

It suggested introducing a new Fundamental Duty requiring citizens not to act against the unity and security of the country.
It also proposed penalizing actions or expressions that promote separatism or threaten national harmony.

8. Empowering the Parliament

The committee proposed giving greater powers to Parliament in making laws on subjects of national importance. It recommended reducing the powers of state legislatures in certain areas and centralizing authority under the Union Government to maintain a uniform policy framework.

9. Expansion of the Preamble

The committee suggested revising the Preamble of the Constitution to reflect India’s socialist and secular character. Based on this recommendation, the 42nd Amendment inserted the words “Socialist” and “Secular” into the Preamble, emphasizing India’s commitment to social and economic equality and religious neutrality.

10. Establishing Discipline and Responsibility Among Citizens

The committee believed that democracy could succeed only when citizens balance their rights and responsibilities.

It proposed that citizens should work toward the welfare of the nation, respect its institutions, and maintain discipline in their actions.
These recommendations influenced the framing of the Fundamental Duties we follow today.

The Swaran Singh Committee played a crucial role in reshaping the Indian Constitution during the Emergency period. Its recommendations aimed to:

Strengthen the Union Government
Introduce citizens’ duties
Protect national integrity
Limit judicial interference
Promote welfare-oriented policies

However, many of its suggestions — when implemented through the 42nd Amendment — were heavily criticized for concentrating excessive power in the hands of the central government and weakening democratic principles.

Despite the criticisms, one of the committee’s lasting contributions was the inclusion of Fundamental Duties, which remain a core part of the Constitution today.

Implementation of Swaran Singh Committee Recommendations Through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976

The Swaran Singh Committee, set up in 1976 during the period of Internal Emergency (1975–1977), played a crucial role in shaping the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which is often called the “Mini-Constitution” due to the wide-ranging changes it introduced in the Indian Constitution.

The committee, headed by Sardar Swaran Singh, was formed by the Indira Gandhi-led government to review the Constitution and recommend amendments that would strengthen the central government, promote national unity, and improve governance. Most of its key recommendations were implemented through the 42nd Amendment Act, although not all were accepted.

This amendment made major structural changes to the Constitution, significantly altering the balance of power between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.

Let us understand in detail how the Swaran Singh Committee’s recommendations were implemented through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.

1. Introduction of Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

One of the most significant contributions of the Swaran Singh Committee was the introduction of Fundamental Duties in the Constitution. The committee recommended that citizens should not only enjoy Fundamental Rights but also perform certain obligations toward the nation. Based on its recommendations, Part IVA was added to the Constitution, introducing Article 51A, which listed 10 Fundamental Duties.

These duties require citizens to:
- Respect the Constitution, National Flag, and National Anthem
- Protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India
- Promote harmony and brotherhood
- Safeguard the environment and public property
- Uphold scientific temper and human dignity

This was one of the most enduring legacies of the Swaran Singh Committee, as these duties remain enforceable today, although they are not legally binding.

2. Strengthening the Powers of the Central Government

The Swaran Singh Committee emphasized greater centralization of power to maintain national unity and sovereignty.

The 42nd Amendment implemented this by expanding the powers of the Union Parliament to make laws on subjects from the Concurrent List, even if they conflicted with state laws.
Parliament was given supremacy over the states in several key areas, making the Indian system more unitary during national crises.

3. Giving Primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)

The committee recommended that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) should be given precedence over Fundamental Rights whenever there was a conflict.

The 42nd Amendment implemented this by amending Article 31C, ensuring that laws enacted to implement DPSPs cannot be declared invalid merely because they violated Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (Equality) or 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression).
This gave the government more freedom to pursue welfare-oriented policies without facing constant legal challenges.

4. Expansion of the Preamble

The Swaran Singh Committee suggested that the Preamble should reflect India’s evolving social and political vision.

Based on this recommendation, the 42nd Amendment inserted the words “Socialist” and “Secular” into the Preamble.
It also added the phrase “integrity of the nation” to emphasize India’s unity and sovereignty.
These changes underlined India’s commitment to economic equality, religious neutrality, and national unity.

5. Restriction of Fundamental Rights

The committee recommended imposing reasonable restrictions on certain Fundamental Rights, especially on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19.

The 42nd Amendment implemented this by allowing the government to curtail individual freedoms if they were perceived as threats to the sovereignty, security, or integrity of India.
This provision was highly controversial as it reduced citizens’ liberty and increased the executive’s power to control dissent.

6. Limiting Judicial Review

The Swaran Singh Committee recommended reducing the Judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments and government actions.

The 42nd Amendment implemented this by amending Article 368, making Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution absolute and beyond judicial scrutiny.
It also attempted to curb the Supreme Court’s and High Courts’ authority to review laws under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court had already ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, and later in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court struck down several such provisions introduced by the 42nd Amendment.

7. Changes in Emergency Provisions

The committee recommended strengthening the Emergency provisions to empower the central government during national crises.

Through the 42nd Amendment, it became easier for the government to declare and extend a National Emergency under Article 352.
The amendment also extended the tenure of Parliament and State Legislatures beyond five years during an Emergency.
However, these powers were later curtailed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 to prevent misuse.

8. Expansion of Parliament’s Legislative Powers

The Swaran Singh Committee believed that Parliament should have wider legislative authority to ensure uniformity in governance. The 42nd Amendment implemented this by transferring several subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, thereby expanding the Union Parliament’s ability to legislate.

9. Establishing National Integrity as a Constitutional Principle

The committee recommended introducing provisions to protect national integrity and discourage separatist activities. The 42nd Amendment inserted a clause that allowed the government to impose restrictions on freedom of speech and association if such activities threatened the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

10. Implementation with Modifications

Although many recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee were implemented through the 42nd Amendment, some proposals were rejected, such as:

Making Fundamental Duties enforceable by law
Introducing penalties for non-compliance of duties
Giving the President the power to reject certain bills passed by Parliament

The government chose to make Fundamental Duties moral obligations rather than legally enforceable duties.

While the inclusion of Fundamental Duties and the emphasis on national integrity were positive contributions, the amendment was also heavily criticized for centralizing power, weakening judicial independence, and restricting citizens’ rights.

Many controversial provisions introduced through the 42nd Amendment were later reversed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, restoring the democratic balance of power.

Criticism of the Swaran Singh Committee and 42nd Amendment

The Swaran Singh Committee, formed in 1976 during the Internal Emergency (1975–1977), and the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which implemented many of its recommendations, remain one of the most debated chapters in India’s constitutional history.

The committee, headed by Sardar Swaran Singh, aimed to strengthen the powers of the central government, introduce Fundamental Duties, and make the Constitution more “effective.” However, many of its recommendations — when implemented through the 42nd Amendment — faced strong criticism from constitutional experts, opposition parties, the judiciary, and civil society.

The amendment is often referred to as the “Mini-Constitution” because it brought extensive changes to almost every part of the Constitution, but critics argue that it was used by the government to concentrate power, curtail individual freedoms, and weaken democratic institutions.

Below is a detailed analysis of the criticisms of the Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.

1. Excessive Centralization of Power

One of the strongest criticisms was that the committee and the amendment tilted the balance of power in favor of the central government:

The 42nd Amendment gave Parliament supremacy over state legislatures in many areas by shifting subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List.
This weakened India’s federal structure and reduced the autonomy of state governments.
Critics argued that this undermined the basic structure of the Constitution, which guarantees a balance of power between the Centre and the states.

2. Weakening of Judicial Review

The Swaran Singh Committee recommended limiting the powers of the judiciary, and the 42nd Amendment implemented this by:

Amending Article 368 to make Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution absolute and beyond judicial scrutiny.
Attempting to override the Supreme Court’s authority established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Restricting the power of the High Courts to review constitutional validity of central laws.

This was widely criticized as an attack on the independence of the judiciary and an attempt to silence judicial oversight.

3. Curtailment of Fundamental Rights

The Swaran Singh Committee suggested imposing restrictions on certain Fundamental Rights, which were implemented through the 42nd Amendment:

Article 19 (freedom of speech, expression, and association) was restricted by adding new grounds such as “sovereignty”, “integrity of India”, and “friendly relations with foreign states”.
These provisions allowed the government to suppress dissent and control the press.
During the Emergency, several citizens were arrested under preventive detention laws without trial, which became easier after these changes.

Critics argued that this violated democratic principles and eroded individual liberties.

4. Primacy of Directive Principles Over Fundamental Rights

The committee recommended that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) should have precedence over Fundamental Rights, and this was adopted through the amendment:

Article 31C was amended to ensure that laws enacted to implement DPSPs could not be challenged in courts even if they violated rights under Articles 14 (Equality) or 19 (Freedom).
Critics argued that this weakened Fundamental Rights, which are considered the core of the Constitution.

This move was later struck down by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980), which restored the balance between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights.

5. Misuse of Emergency Powers

The Swaran Singh Committee supported granting more powers to the central government during an Emergency. The 42nd Amendment made it:

Easier to declare a National Emergency under Article 352.
Allowed the Executive to extend Parliament’s tenure beyond five years during an Emergency.
Permitted the government to suspend the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, except Articles 20 and 21.

This was criticized for enabling authoritarian rule during the Emergency (1975–1977), when civil liberties were suspended, press censorship was imposed, and political opponents were jailed.

6. Introduction of Fundamental Duties Without Enforcement

The Swaran Singh Committee recommended adding Fundamental Duties to the Constitution, which was done through the 42nd Amendment under Article 51A.

While the idea of citizens’ duties was welcomed, critics argued that the duties were non-enforceable and served only as moral obligations without legal consequences.
Additionally, the duties were seen as a tool to justify restrictions on rights rather than genuinely promote civic responsibility.

7. Expansion of the Preamble – Political Motivations

The 42nd Amendment modified the Preamble by inserting the words “Socialist” and “Secular” and adding the phrase “unity and integrity of the nation”.

Critics argued that these changes were introduced without sufficient debate and were intended to politically favor the ruling government’s ideology.
While the values themselves are significant, the amendment process raised concerns about political interference in the Constitution.

8. Lack of Public Debate and Consultation

Another major criticism was the hurried passage of the 42nd Amendment:

The amendment was introduced and passed during the Emergency, when press freedom was curtailed, political opposition suppressed, and civil liberties suspended.
There was no meaningful debate in Parliament or consultation with experts, scholars, and the public.
This led many critics to argue that the amendment was a product of authoritarian governance rather than democratic consensus.

9. Undermining the Basic Structure Doctrine

In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.

However, the 42nd Amendment attempted to override this ruling by granting Parliament unlimited amending power.
The Supreme Court later struck down several provisions of the amendment in the Minerva Mills case (1980), reaffirming that democracy, judicial review, federalism, and individual freedoms form the basic structure and cannot be altered.

Judicial Response and Reversal

Many of the provisions introduced through the 42nd Amendment were later challenged in courts:

In the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) case, the Supreme Court:
- Struck down amendments that gave unlimited powers to Parliament.
- Restored the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring Parliament cannot destroy the essential features of the Constitution.

This judgment significantly diluted the controversial provisions introduced through the amendment.

The Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 were intended to strengthen the Constitution, empower the central government, and promote national integrity, but in practice, they weakened democracy by:

Curtailing citizens’ rights
Reducing judicial independence
Centralizing excessive power in the hands of the Executive

While some recommendations, such as the introduction of Fundamental Duties and the expansion of the Preamble, remain significant achievements, many other provisions were criticized for undermining constitutional principles.

Eventually, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, passed by the Janata Party government, reversed many controversial provisions of the 42nd Amendment and restored the democratic balance of power.

Impact on Indian Democracy

The Swaran Singh Committee (1976) and the subsequent 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 had a profound impact on the Indian democratic framework. While the committee aimed to strengthen the Constitution and promote national unity, the implementation of its recommendations through the 42nd Amendment significantly altered the balance of power between the Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, and citizens.

This amendment is widely regarded as the “Mini-Constitution” because of the extensive changes it introduced to the Indian Constitution. However, its impact on Indian democracy has been mixed — some provisions continue to play an important role today, while others were heavily criticized and later rolled back by the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978.

Below is a detailed discussion on the impact of the Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Amendment on India’s democratic system.

1. Strengthening the Central Government

One of the most significant impacts was the centralization of power:

Several subjects were moved from the State List to the Concurrent List, giving the Union Government greater control over state matters.
This tilted the federal balance in favor of the Centre and reduced the autonomy of states.
Supporters argued that this was necessary for national integration and policy uniformity, but critics viewed it as a step toward authoritarianism.

Impact on Democracy:
The shift weakened India’s federal character, which is a basic feature of the Constitution, and concentrated power in the hands of the Union government.

2. Weakening of the Judiciary and Judicial Review

The 42nd Amendment limited the powers of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts:

Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was made absolute, preventing courts from reviewing constitutional amendments.
The amendment attempted to override the Supreme Court’s landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), which established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
High Courts’ power to review central laws was significantly curtailed.

Impact on Democracy:
By reducing judicial review, the amendment weakened one of the pillars of democracy — an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court later restored balance in the Minerva Mills case (1980) by reaffirming that Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Curtailment of Fundamental Rights

The amendment imposed severe restrictions on Fundamental Rights:

Under Article 19, new grounds such as “sovereignty”, “integrity of India”, and “friendly relations with foreign states” were added to restrict free speech, association, and expression.
These restrictions allowed the government to censor the media, ban organizations, and suppress political dissent.
Preventive detention laws were also strengthened, leading to widespread arbitrary arrests during the Emergency.

Impact on Democracy:
Freedom of speech and individual liberty — the heart of democracy — were severely compromised, leading to a period of authoritarian governance.

4. Priority of Directive Principles Over Fundamental Rights

Through the amendment, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) were given precedence over Fundamental Rights:

The amended Article 31C ensured that laws made to implement DPSPs could not be challenged even if they violated Articles 14 (equality) or 19 (freedom).
This gave Parliament uncontrolled power to override citizens’ rights.

Impact on Democracy:
This provision was criticized for undermining individual freedoms and granting the government a free hand to implement policies without judicial checks. It was later struck down by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) to restore the balance between rights and policies.

5. Changes to the Preamble — Political Influence

The 42nd Amendment altered the Preamble by adding the words “Socialist” and “Secular”, along with the phrase “unity and integrity of the nation”:

While the values themselves reflect the spirit of democracy, critics argued that the changes were made to reflect the political ideology of the ruling party.
The process lacked public debate and parliamentary consensus, leading to controversy.

Impact on Democracy:
Although the inserted terms are widely accepted today, the political motivations behind these changes sparked debates on the neutrality of constitutional amendments.

6. Introduction of Fundamental Duties

The committee recommended and the amendment introduced Fundamental Duties under Article 51A:

Citizens were required to respect the Constitution, national symbols, and national institutions.
Duties aimed to promote unity, discipline, and civic responsibility.

Impact on Democracy:
While the addition of Fundamental Duties was seen as a positive development, critics noted that they were non-enforceable. They remain moral obligations rather than legal duties, limiting their practical effect.

7. Emergency Powers and Democratic Backlash

The Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Amendment enhanced the central government’s powers during national emergencies:

It became easier to declare and prolong an Emergency.
The tenure of Parliament could be extended beyond five years.
Enforcement of most Fundamental Rights could be suspended during an Emergency.

Impact on Democracy:
During the Emergency (1975–1977), these provisions were used to suppress opposition, curtail press freedom, and jail thousands of citizens. It created one of the darkest periods in Indian democracy.

8. Reduced Role of States in Governance

By transferring subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List and expanding Parliament’s legislative power, the amendment reduced state autonomy:

State legislatures had less control over policy decisions.
The central government gained dominance over education, forests, and several economic matters.

Impact on Democracy:
This weakened cooperative federalism, making governance more unitary than federal in spirit, which conflicted with the basic structure of the Constitution.

9. Lack of Public Consultation and Transparency

Another major impact was on the democratic process itself:

The 42nd Amendment was passed during the Emergency, when opposition leaders were jailed and press censorship was imposed.
There was no open debate in Parliament or public participation in the decision-making process.

Impact on Democracy:
This bypassing of democratic consultation reduced public trust in the government and raised concerns about executive overreach.

10. Judicial Revival of Democracy

After the Janata Party government came to power in 1977, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 was introduced:

It reversed many controversial provisions of the 42nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court, through judgments like Minerva Mills (1980), restored the balance between Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Parliament’s powers.
Judicial activism ensured that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

Impact on Democracy:
The reversal of several provisions re-established constitutional supremacy, protected individual freedoms, and strengthened checks and balances among the three organs of government.

The Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 had a lasting impact on Indian democracy. While the committee intended to strengthen national unity, promote citizen duties, and empower governance, its implementation resulted in:

Centralization of power
Suppression of Fundamental Rights
Weakening of the judiciary
Reduced federalism
Erosion of democratic freedoms

However, the public backlash after the Emergency, the judicial interventions in Minerva Mills, and the 44th Amendment helped restore democratic values.

Today, the Fundamental Duties and changes to the Preamble remain as lasting contributions, but the rest of the amendment serves as a cautionary reminder of how constitutional powers can be misused when democratic checks are weakened.

Conclusion

The Swaran Singh Committee was formed during one of the most politically sensitive periods in India’s history. Its recommendations led to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which made extensive changes to the Indian Constitution. While the introduction of Fundamental Duties was a positive contribution, many of the other recommendations were criticized for undermining democracy, restricting fundamental rights, and weakening the judiciary.

Over time, many of its controversial provisions were rolled back, but its impact on India’s constitutional and political framework remains undeniable. The committee’s work serves as both a lesson and a reminder about maintaining the delicate balance between Parliamentary supremacy, citizen rights, and judicial independence in a democratic system.

Swaran Singh Committee – Explained

SHARE: