* I. C. Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab Case: Year 1967
* Case was about validity of amendment of Punjab Land Security Act 1053 and Mysore Land Reforms Act. Moreover this amendment was included in ninth schedule of constitution by Seventieth Amendment Act, 1964. Petitioners challenged this amendment under Article 32 of constitution. Constitutional Bench comprising of 11 judges headed by then Chief Justice of SC was to decide on whether Fundamental Rights intended to be permanently unamendable.
* Bench with 6-5 pronounced ruling that Amendments to Fundamental Rights are outside purview of Parliament. Constituent Assembly has to be formed in order to change part(s) of Fundamental Rights or Article 368 of Indian Constitution.
* Bench said Fundamental Rights are given transcendental position in Indian Constitution and has been kept out of reach of Parliament. Even during emergency, Article 19 stands to be suspended by Article 358 while all other fundamental rights are available except those specifically suspended by President under Article 359 while proclaiming emergency.
* Article 13 is not source of protection of fundamental rights but is expression of reservation. No matter how well intentioned policy unanimously enacted by Parliament but if it abridges any article residing under Part IIIthen it would be declared as void.
* It is parliaments duty to enforce directive principles policy without affecting ambit of fundamental rights.
* Article 368 merely prescribes procedure for amendment of constitution; it cant be source of power to amend constitution. Article 368 is not itself complete code for amendment procedure.
* In this case, court used doctrine of prospective overruling in which court finds the law; but it doesnt give retroactive effect. Due to this doctrine, judgment pronounced by this bench would only bar future laws aimed to take away fundamental rights; it would not affect validity of Seventieth Amendment, 1964 or any past acts related to infringement of Fundamental Rights.
* Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala: Year 1973
* Kesavananda filed case against Kerala states attempt to restrict management of property under its two land reforms acts. This case judgement overruled earlier Golaknath case judgement. It was heard by largest constitutional bench. Judgement was held by 7-6 margin.
* SC held that amendment to constitution is not law itself.
* Important view adopted by SC in this case was parliament could amend any part of constitution unless it didnt alter/amend the basic structure or essential features of constitution.
* During the time when this case was surfaced in Supreme Court, there was culmination of conflict between Judiciary and Government.
* By this landmark judgement Supreme Court came as saviour to constitution from totalitarian encroachment of constitution by Parliament. SC pronounced constitution superior over Parliament.
* Basic Structure Doctrine adopted by SC in this judgement preserved democracy in India.
* Since then, SC adopted Basic Structure Doctrine in subsequent cases.
* Another important proposition adopted by SC is that though preamble isnt part of constitution, basic structure of constitution can be derived from Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
* Features of Basic Structure Doctrine adopted by SC can be derived from different judgments delivered by court since pronouncement of this doctrine. Basic features are sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, the federal system, judicial review, Parliamentary system of government, Reasonableness, Freedom and Dignity of individual, Fair Election, Secularism, Rule of Law, Equality, Social and Economical Justice, Judicial Review.
* SC also upheld validity of clause (4) of Article 13 and corresponding provision of Article 368(3) which reads as follows: Nothing in this article (article 13) shall apply to any amendment made under article 368.
* Due to validity of Article 13(4), even fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament as long as it doesnt alter/amend basic foundation of constitution.
* Thus, amendment under Article 368, means only changes other than altering the basic structure of constitution.
* Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India: Year 1980
* Due to low productivity, Government took over management of Minerva Mills Ltd under Sick Textiles Understanding (Nationalization) Act 1974. Company questioned validity of this act in Supreme Court.
* SC held that any act of parliament cant take away judicial review as it is basic feature of constitution and there shall be limit to power of parliament to amend the constitution.
* Basic Doctrine initiated by Kesavananda Case was evolved and utilised in this case.
* Parliament cant expand its amending power under Article 368 so as to repeal or abrogate the constitution or any amending act which violates basic structure of it.
* Three articles namely Article 14, 19 and 21 are heaven of freedoms which take precedence over directive principles. Therefore any clause/act prioritising directive principle over these articles is to be void or unconstitutional.
* Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India: Year 1978
* Maneka Gandhi filed case against Government of India over impounding her passport.
* Before this case, Supreme Court prevailed view that there was no guarantee in constitution against arbitrary legislation encroaching upon personal liberty under Article 21.
* Decision of Government was challenged under violation of Article 14, 19 and 21. Supreme Court said that Article 19 and 21 are not water-tight or alienated components.
* Personal Liberty is not just right to life but it is of wildest amplitude covering variety of basic rights to live with dignity. Due to this definition, there may be overlapping between Article 19 and 21.
* Thus, law must satisfy both article provisions same time. In this case, Governments order violated the principle of natural justice by not giving affected person an opportunity to be heard or represent against the order.
* From this case, Supreme Court enlarged scope of Article 21. It held that right to life as interpreted in Article 21 means something more than survival or animal existence and would include the right to live with human dignity.
* Adopting liberal interpretation the Supreme Court has read several rights in Article 21 to make life more meaningful and worth living.
* SC said isolation of various aspects of human freedom, for purposes of their protection, is neither realistic nor beneficial but would defeat very objects of such protection.
* SC based their liberal view of life in Blackstones theory of natural rights. Thus, partiality among natural rights and constitutional rights is not in interest of constitution,
* Since the rule of natural rights is calculated to secure justice, it must be logically applied to quasi-judicial and administrative enquiry.
* SC said that the reasonableness of a restriction depends upon the values of life in a society, the circumstances obtaining at a particular point of time when the restriction is imposed, the degree and the urgency of the evil sought to be controlled.
* S. R. Bommai Vs Union of India Case: Year 1991
* Petition was filed by S R Bommai against Presidency rule proclamation in Karnataka under recommendation of Governor. SC heard this petition along with other petitions filed regarding president rule in different states.
* This case challenged misuse of Article 356 and interpreted Centre-State relations. It refined federal character of constitution.
* After this verdict court may interfere if the proclamation is mala fide or the reasons disclosed for making proclamation have no reasonable nexus with the satisfaction of the President.
* Court said that proclamation must have materialistic basis or essence of relevance of failure of the constitutional machinery.
* SC held that Governors recommendation to proclaim President rule in state alone is not basis of failure of administrative machinery in respective state.
* From this case, SC tactically curtailed misuse of powers of Article 356 and preserve federal character in constitution.
* SC said that if proclamation is invalid on ground of reasonableness or lack of materialistic basis, then even parliament approval to it would not change it into valid order.
* Court held that it will have power by an interim injunction, to restrain the holding of fresh elections to the Legislative Assembly pending the final disposal of the challenge to the validity of the proclamation.
* The views expressed by Supreme Court in this judgement are largely similar to concerns shown by Sarkaria Commission.
By Kunjal Shah
* List of References:
1. Introduction to Constitution of India Author: D D Basu
2. http://www.indiankanoon.org/
3. http://www.thehindu.com/
