24th Amendment of the Constitution of India

The 24th Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, was a significant modificat

The 24th Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, was a significant modification introduced to strengthen Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. 

This amendment was introduced in the wake of judicial challenges that questioned Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights, especially following landmark Supreme Court rulings that limited this power. 

The 24th Amendment clarified and reinstated Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution of India, including fundamental rights.

---

Background of the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment of the Indian Constitution, enacted in 1971, emerged in a period of intense constitutional debate and political reform in India. The primary catalyst for the amendment was the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case (1967), which raised significant concerns about Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution, especially concerning fundamental rights.

Key Factors Leading to the 24th Amendment of the Constitution

1. Golaknath Case (1967):
   In the landmark Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights, thereby preventing any alteration that could infringe on the rights provided in Part III of the Constitution. The judgment classified fundamental rights as beyond the reach of Parliament's amendment power, which significantly limited the government's ability to implement social and economic policies that could involve modifying property rights or other fundamental provisions.

2. Growing Demand for Socio-Economic Reforms:
   In the post-independence era, India faced widespread poverty, land ownership disparities, and social inequality. To address these issues, the government implemented reforms in areas such as land redistribution and wealth distribution. However, several of these measures required constitutional amendments that could potentially conflict with fundamental rights. The Golaknath decision created a roadblock for the government’s reform agenda, as it restricted Parliament’s ability to amend property rights and other related provisions.

3. Political Climate Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi:
   In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s administration focused heavily on implementing socialist policies aimed at reducing inequality. With the Supreme Court limiting Parliament’s amending power, the government felt that legislative authority needed strengthening to pass reforms without judicial intervention. This led to a growing push within the government to amend the Constitution to ensure that Parliament could make changes to any part of the document, including fundamental rights.

4. Need for Clarification on Parliament's Powers:
   The Golaknath ruling created ambiguity about Parliament's authority under Article 368 (which outlines the amendment process). Parliament could amend other parts of the Constitution, but not those concerning fundamental rights, which prompted a demand to clarify this in the Constitution itself.

Objectives of the 24th Amendment

The primary goals behind the 24th Amendment were:

1. Restoring Parliament’s Authority to Amend Fundamental Rights:
   By making amendments to Article 368 and Article 13, the 24th Amendment aimed to clearly define that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. This provided the government with the necessary authority to implement comprehensive reforms for social and economic development.

2. Defining the Relationship Between Judiciary and Legislature:
   The amendment sought to limit judicial interference in legislative decisions related to constitutional amendments, marking a distinct separation of powers. This change intended to reinforce the role of Parliament in amending the Constitution, while also establishing boundaries for judicial review.

3. Providing Constitutional Clarity and Stability:
   By expressly stating that an amendment would not be considered a "law" under Article 13, the 24th Amendment ensured that constitutional amendments would not be subject to challenges on the basis that they infringed on fundamental rights. This clarification aimed to provide stability and continuity in the legislative process, allowing Parliament to enact policies that addressed India’s socio-economic issues.

Provisions of the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment brought the following major changes to the Indian Constitution:

• Amendment of Article 368 to explicitly state that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• Modification of Article 13 to clarify that constitutional amendments under Article 368 would not be considered “laws,” shielding them from judicial review on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
• Mandatory Presidential Assent for any constitutional amendment bill passed by Parliament, ensuring that such bills could not be delayed or denied by the President.

Impact of the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment reasserted Parliament's authority and set a precedent for future amendments. Although it strengthened legislative power, it also eventually led to the Kesavananda Bharati Case in 1973, where the Supreme Court introduced the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine allowed Parliament to amend the Constitution but prohibited changes that would alter its "basic structure," a balance between legislative flexibility and constitutional integrity.

Overall, the 24th Amendment was a pivotal step in the evolution of India's Constitution, marking a critical moment in the ongoing dialogue between the legislature and judiciary. It underscored the importance of maintaining a flexible yet protected framework for constitutional amendments, allowing for adaptation to changing social and political contexts while preserving foundational values.

---

Key Provisions of the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment of the Indian Constitution, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, introduced specific changes that clarified and expanded the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including its fundamental rights provisions. Here are the key provisions:

1. Amendment of Article 368 (Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution)

• The 24th Amendment added explicit language to Article 368, stating that Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• It added new clauses to Article 368, specifying that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was absolute and could be used to make changes to any part, thus overturning the limitations implied by the Supreme Court in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) decision.

2. Clarification in Article 13 (Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights)

• The amendment clarified that a constitutional amendment would not be deemed a “law” under Article 13. Article 13 previously stated that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights would be void. This provision was adjusted to ensure that constitutional amendments were exempt from being invalidated on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
• This change meant that amendments could override fundamental rights, making it clear that Parliament could change these rights as part of its amending power.

3. Mandatory Presidential Assent to Constitutional Amendments

• The amendment required the President of India to give assent to any constitutional amendment bill passed by both houses of Parliament.
• Prior to this amendment, the President had discretionary power to withhold assent, but the 24th Amendment made it obligatory for the President to sign any amendment bill once passed by Parliament.

By amending Articles 368 and 13, the 24th Amendment reinforced the supremacy of Parliament in altering any part of the Constitution, including the rights and provisions deemed fundamental. However, it also set the stage for future constitutional debates, especially in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the basic structure doctrine was introduced to limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, ensuring that its core principles would remain intact. The 24th Amendment thus marked a significant moment in Indian constitutional law, expanding legislative power while prompting the judiciary to establish boundaries through the basic structure doctrine.

---

Significance of the 24th Amendment of the Constitution

The 24th Amendment had a profound impact on the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches in India. Here are some of its notable implications:

1. Empowerment of Parliament for Reforms: By reinstating Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights, the 24th Amendment enabled Parliament to carry forward economic and social reforms that might have otherwise been deemed unconstitutional.

2. Foundation for the 25th Amendment: The 24th Amendment paved the way for subsequent amendments, particularly the 25th Amendment, which focused on curbing property rights to facilitate land reforms. This was crucial for implementing policies aimed at reducing inequality in land ownership and promoting social justice.

3. Influence on the Basic Structure Doctrine: Although the 24th Amendment asserted Parliament’s authority, the judiciary would later respond with the basic structure doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). This doctrine maintained that while Parliament could amend most parts of the Constitution, it could not alter its "basic structure," thereby ensuring a balance between Parliament’s authority and constitutional integrity.

4. Permanent Change in Amendment Power: The amendment fundamentally altered Article 368, granting Parliament unambiguous authority to amend any part of the Constitution. This marked a shift in constitutional interpretation, empowering Parliament to make substantial changes to further India’s socio-economic objectives.

---

Landmark Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, decided in 1973, directly addressed the implications of the 24th Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment but introduced the basic structure doctrine as a limitation on Parliament’s amendment powers.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court ruled that although Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its "basic structure." This doctrine identified certain principles, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, which Parliament could not modify. This doctrine created a balance, allowing Parliament to pursue amendments while preserving the foundational values of the Constitution.

---

Arguments For and Against the 24th Amendment

The 24th Amendment of the Indian Constitution was a significant legislative measure that clarified Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, the amendment sparked intense debate and divergent opinions, both for and against it.

Arguments For the 24th Amendment

1. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Flexibility

   • Supporters argued that the amendment was necessary to maintain Parliament's sovereignty in shaping the nation’s laws and adapting the Constitution to changing needs. They believed that a flexible Constitution is essential for progress, allowing Parliament to make necessary adjustments to uphold social justice.

2. Response to Judicial Limitations

   • The amendment was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Golaknath case (1967), which held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. Proponents felt this ruling restricted Parliament's power unduly and interfered with democratic governance, as elected representatives should have the ability to adjust the Constitution in the nation’s interest.

3. Socio-Economic Reforms

   • Many believed that the amendment was vital for social and economic reforms, particularly land reforms. Some fundamental rights, such as the right to property (which was later removed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment), often came in conflict with laws aimed at reducing inequality and redistributing land. The 24th Amendment empowered Parliament to amend these rights, ensuring reforms could be implemented for greater social equity.

4. President’s Role as a Formality

   • Supporters argued that the President's role in constitutional amendments should be ceremonial. The 24th Amendment made the President’s assent to amendments mandatory, reducing the risk of political or personal bias in decisions on constitutional change. This change was seen as beneficial to ensure consistency and impartiality in the amendment process.

Arguments Against the 24th Amendment

1. Undermining Fundamental Rights

   • Critics argued that empowering Parliament to amend fundamental rights without restriction could undermine the core rights that protect citizens' freedoms and liberties. They feared that this power could be misused by governments to suppress dissent, limit freedoms, or reduce protections guaranteed under fundamental rights.

2. Threat to Judicial Review

   • Opponents believed the amendment was an attempt to weaken judicial review—the judiciary's power to interpret the Constitution and invalidate unconstitutional laws. By allowing Parliament unrestricted amending power, critics feared that judicial checks on unconstitutional amendments would be eroded, leading to potential overreach by Parliament.

3. Potential for Abuse of Power

   • The 24th Amendment raised concerns that giving Parliament unrestrained amending power, especially over fundamental rights, opened doors for potential abuse by political majorities. Critics warned that this could lead to amendments that favor the ruling party’s agenda over citizens’ welfare, threatening democratic values.

4. Reduced Role of the President

   • Some critics argued that making the President’s assent to constitutional amendments mandatory reduced the checks and balances in the amendment process. By obliging the President to approve any amendment passed by Parliament, the amendment arguably concentrated too much power in Parliament and diminished the role of the President as a safeguard.

5. Incompatibility with Constitutional Permanence

   • Opponents argued that the amendment disregarded the permanent and enduring nature of a constitution. They believed that certain fundamental principles, like basic rights, should be beyond ordinary legislative change, as these principles uphold the Constitution’s stability and continuity. The amendment, in their view, compromised the Constitution's intended endurance.

Impact of the Debate and the Basic Structure Doctrine

The debate surrounding the 24th Amendment eventually led to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), in which the Supreme Court upheld the amendment but introduced the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine stated that while Parliament could amend most parts of the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure.” This doctrine effectively placed limits on Parliament’s amendment power, addressing some of the concerns raised by critics of the 24th Amendment.

The arguments for and against the 24th Amendment highlight the ongoing tension between Parliamentary supremacy and judicial review, as well as the importance of protecting fundamental rights while allowing flexibility for constitutional evolution.

---

Conclusion

The 24th Amendment was a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional history, reinforcing Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution while setting the stage for an ongoing dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Although the amendment successfully restored Parliament’s authority, it also triggered a judicial response in the form of the basic structure doctrine, which continues to shape India’s constitutional landscape.

Through the 24th Amendment, the Indian Constitution evolved to address the need for legislative flexibility in a rapidly changing society. This amendment remains an essential part of India’s legal and political discourse, illustrating the dynamic nature of the Constitution and its capacity to adapt to new challenges while preserving core principles.