24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 is one of the most significant amendments in the history of the Indian Constitution. It fundamentally altered the power dynamics between the Parliament and the judiciary, especially concerning the power to amend the Constitution and the protection of Fundamental Rights.

This Amendment was enacted as a direct response to the landmark Supreme Court judgement in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had considerably limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly in relation to Fundamental Rights. 

The 24th Amendment aimed to restore Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, thereby reaffirming parliamentary sovereignty over constitutional amendments.

Historical Background of 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

The Early Position on Amendment Power

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, Parliament was empowered to amend any part of the Constitution through the procedure set out in Article 368. However, questions arose concerning whether this power extended to Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

In the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that such amendments did not amount to “law” under Article 13(2), which prohibits any law that abridges Fundamental Rights. Thus, Parliament’s amendment power was considered absolute.

Sajjan Singh Case (1965)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its position in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, confirming that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This seemed to settle the question in favour of parliamentary supremacy.

Golaknath Case (1967)

The landscape changed dramatically with the I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab case. The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, overruled the earlier rulings and held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. It stated that any constitutional amendment curtailing Fundamental Rights would be void as it would amount to “law” under Article 13(2).

This verdict essentially declared Parliament powerless to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, leading to a significant constitutional crisis between the judiciary and legislature.

Why Was the 24th Amendment Enacted?

The Golaknath judgement was widely criticised by the government and lawmakers. It was felt that this decision hampered the Parliament’s ability to implement social welfare reforms, especially those aimed at redistributing wealth and giving effect to Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which often came into conflict with Fundamental Rights.

The Parliament believed that the amendment power under Article 368 should include the power to amend Fundamental Rights to align the Constitution with the changing needs of the society. The 24th Amendment was therefore enacted to:

• Restore Parliament’s unrestricted authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Ensure the President’s assent to constitutional amendment bills was obligatory.
• Protect the social welfare legislation from being struck down by the judiciary.
• Nullify the impact of the Golaknath judgement by clarifying that amendments under Article 368 were not “law” as contemplated under Article 13.

Key Provisions of the 24th Amendment

The Amendment made important changes to Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution.

Amendment to Article 13

A new clause, Article 13(4), was inserted which stated:

“Nothing in this Article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.”

This meant that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 would not be treated as “law” for the purpose of Article 13, thereby excluding them from judicial scrutiny on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights.

Amendment to Article 368

• The marginal heading of Article 368 was changed from “Procedure for amendment of the Constitution” to “Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereof.”
• Clause (3) was added to Article 368, which reads: “Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article.”
• The Amendment also made it mandatory for the President to give assent to any Constitution Amendment Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament. This removed any discretion the President had to withhold assent.

Impact of 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

Restoration of Parliamentary Supremacy

The 24th Amendment unequivocally restored the Parliament’s power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This was a significant reversal of the Golaknath verdict and asserted parliamentary sovereignty in constitutional matters.

Limitation on Judicial Review

By excluding constitutional amendments from the scope of Article 13, the Amendment effectively curtailed the judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights. This created a clear constitutional space where parliamentary amendments could not be challenged for abridging Fundamental Rights.

Beginning of a Series of Amendments

The 24th Amendment was the first in a series of constitutional amendments during the early 1970s that sought to increase parliamentary authority and reduce judicial interference. These included the 25th, 38th, 39th, and the historic 42nd Amendment of 1976, which made extensive changes to the Constitution during the Emergency period.

Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine

Background

The 24th Amendment’s validity was challenged along with other amendments in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973). A 13-judge Bench of the Supreme Court examined whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.

The Verdict

• The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, stating that Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend any provision of the Constitution.
• However, the Court laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine which holds that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
• The Basic Structure includes essential features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, judicial review, and fundamental rights.
• This ruling balanced parliamentary sovereignty with judicial review, ensuring that no amendment can destroy the Constitution’s fundamental identity.

Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The doctrine restricts Parliament’s unlimited power by protecting the core principles of the Constitution. It means:

• Fundamental Rights can be amended, but not in a way that destroys their essence.
• Judicial review remains a key safeguard against arbitrary amendments.
• The Constitution remains a living document, flexible yet protected from majoritarian excesses.

Subsequent Developments and Judicial Interpretations

Following the 24th Amendment and the Kesavananda ruling, several important judicial decisions clarified the balance of power:

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that sought to curtail judicial review and give Parliament unlimited amending powers, reaffirming the basic structure doctrine.

Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

The Court in Waman Rao v. Union of India held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda ruling could be subject to judicial review if they violated the basic structure.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain reinforced the power of judicial review over electoral laws and parliamentary actions, highlighting the importance of the basic structure.

Why the 24th Amendment Matters Today?

The 24th Amendment remains a crucial milestone in India’s constitutional history because:

• It reinforced Parliament’s authority to adapt the Constitution to the evolving social, political, and economic realities.
• It highlighted the tension between two pillars of democracy: parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
• It set the stage for the development of the basic structure doctrine, which continues to guide constitutional interpretation.
• It underscores the dynamic nature of the Indian Constitution — neither rigid nor completely flexible but balanced by checks and safeguards.

Conclusion

The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 was Parliament’s decisive response to judicial restrictions on its amending power. By restoring the authority to amend Fundamental Rights, it enabled the government to pursue socio-economic reforms more effectively. However, this was not an absolute restoration of power, as the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Kesavananda Bharati established the basic structure doctrine, placing essential limits on constitutional amendments.