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: A Complete Deep Dive
Understanding the 24th Amendment in Simple Words
Let me walk you through one of the most dramatic chapters in Indian constitutional history. The 24th Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially called The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, was passed on November 5, 1971, during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This amendment fundamentally changed the power dynamics between Parliament and the Supreme Court of India.
Think of it this way: imagine you have a rulebook (the Constitution) that protects your basic rights (Fundamental Rights). Now, the Supreme Court said Parliament cannot change those protected rights. But Parliament said, "Wait, we need the power to update the rulebook when necessary." The 24th Amendment was Parliament's way of saying, "Yes, we CAN amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights."
.png "24th Amendment of the Constitution of India")
The Story Behind the 24th Amendment: Why Was It Needed?
The Golaknath Case Shock (1967)
To truly understand the 24th Amendment, we need to go back to February 27, 1967. On this day, the Supreme Court delivered a bombshell judgment in the case of I.C. Golaknath & Ors. vs. State of Punjab.
• The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of land in Jalandhar, Punjab. The Punjab government passed the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, which limited individual land ownership to 30 standard acres. The surplus land would be taken by the state for redistribution.
• The Golaknath family challenged this law, arguing it violated their Fundamental Right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.
• The case reached an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court — the largest bench constituted up to that time.
• By a razor-thin 6:5 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament does NOT have the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, declared that Fundamental Rights were "transcendental" and "immutable."
• The Court introduced the doctrine of "prospective overruling" — meaning this decision would apply only to future amendments, not past ones like the 1st, 4th, and 17th Amendments.
This judgment created a massive problem for the government. Why? Because India was trying to implement land reforms and socialist policies, and many of these required constitutional changes that affected property rights and other Fundamental Rights. The Golaknath judgment essentially put a lock on Part III of the Constitution.
The Political Context: Indira Gandhi's Government Responds
The 1971 Elections and the Socialist Agenda
By 1971, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was leading a government with a strong socialist agenda. Her election manifesto included promises of social equality programs and land reforms. The Golaknath judgment was seen as a major obstacle to these goals.
• In March 1971, the government won a decisive electoral victory, securing 68% of the total legislative seats.
• The government argued that Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) — which included goals like equitable distribution of wealth — should not be blocked by Fundamental Rights (Part III).
• The government believed that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds by restricting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
What Exactly Did the 24th Amendment Change?
The 24th Amendment made three major changes to the Constitution:
Change 1: Amending Article 13
• Article 13 of the Constitution says that any "law" that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights shall be void.
• The 24th Amendment added Clause (4) to Article 13:
"Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368."
• What this means in simple words: Constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are NOT considered ordinary "laws" under Article 13. Therefore, they cannot be challenged as violating Fundamental Rights.
Change 2: Amending Article 368
• Article 368 originally dealt with the "Procedure for amendment of the Constitution."
• The 24th Amendment changed the heading to: "Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor."
• This was crucial because the Golaknath judgment had argued that Article 368 only provided the procedure, not the power, to amend the Constitution. The new heading made it crystal clear that Parliament HAS the power to amend.
• The amendment also added Clause (3) to Article 368:
"Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article."
• This reinforced the separation between Article 13 and Article 368.
Change 3: Making Presidential Assent Mandatory
• Before the 24th Amendment, when a Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and presented to the President, the President could theoretically withhold assent or return it for reconsideration.
• The 24th Amendment made it obligatory for the President to give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• This removed any potential roadblock at the Presidential level.
The Passage of the 24th Amendment: A Quick Timeline
• July 22, 1971: The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill was introduced by H.R. Gokhale, the Law Minister.
• August 3-4, 1971: The Bill was debated and passed by the Lok Sabha.
• August 10-11, 1971: The Bill was considered and passed by the Rajya Sabha.
• November 5, 1971: The Bill received assent from President Varahagiri Venkata Giri and came into force.
The Bill did NOT require ratification by State Legislatures because it did not affect the federal structure or the provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368(2) (like the election of the President, executive powers, Supreme Court provisions, etc.).
The Criticism and Opposition: Voices Against the Amendment
The 24th Amendment was not without controversy. In fact, it faced significant criticism from various quarters:
From the Indian Press
• The Hindu, in its editorial on August 6, 1971, warned: "All change and growth... have to conform to the basic laws of their province, or otherwise such growth would soon be found to be cancerous and self-destructive."
• The Statesman wrote: "The implications are breath-taking. Parliament now has the power to deny the seven freedoms, abolish Constitutional remedies available to citizens, and to change the federal character of the Union."
From Legal Experts and Jurists
• M.C. Chagla, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, opposed the amendment.
• M.C. Setalvad, former Attorney-General, described the 24th Amendment as "a complete negation of the rule of law" and stressed that it endangered government itself.
• Kasturiranga Santhanam and Nanabhoy Palkhivala — two of India's most renowned jurists — also opposed the amendment.
• V.G. Ramachandran, writing in the Supreme Court Cases Journal, stated that the 24th and 25th Amendments were "not 'tinkering' with the Constitution. It is a veritable slaughter of the Constitution."
From the Constituent Assembly Members
• B. Shiva Rao, Frank Anthony, and all surviving members of the Constituent Assembly at the time opposed the amendment.
• These were the very people who had drafted the original Constitution, and they felt the 24th Amendment was a dangerous overreach.
From Political Leaders
• A.K. Gopalan, leader of the Communist Party (Marxist), supported the bill, calling the Constitution a "bundle of contradictions" drawn up by "representatives of princely houses and big business."
• However, many opposition leaders were deeply concerned about the concentration of power in Parliament's hands.
Interestingly, the amendment received little attention from the general public at the time because the nation was focused on the Bangladesh Liberation War and the looming Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
The Aftermath: The Supreme Court Fights Back
The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The 24th Amendment was almost immediately challenged. The stage was set for what would become the most important constitutional case in Indian history.
• Sri Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.
• The case was heard by a 13-judge bench — the largest bench ever in Indian legal history.
• The bench included legendary judges like Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice H.R. Khanna, and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
• After 68 days of hearings (from October 31, 1972, to March 23, 1973), the judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973.
The Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court's Counter-Attack
By a 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court:
• Upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment — meaning Parliament DOES have the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• Overruled the Golaknath judgment — restoring Parliament's amending power.
• BUT — and this was the game-changer — the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Court ruled that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it CANNOT alter the "basic structure" or "basic framework" of the Constitution.
What Is the Basic Structure?
The Court identified several essential features that form the basic structure:
• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Sovereignty of India
• Democratic and Republican form of government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Rule of law
• Judicial review
• Unity and integrity of the nation
• Equality of status and opportunity
This was a masterstroke by the judiciary. It conceded Parliament's power to amend but drew a line in the sand — Parliament could not destroy the Constitution's core identity.
The Legacy of the 24th Amendment: A Chain of Landmark Cases
Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980)
• After the Emergency (1975-1977), the 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to strengthen Parliament's power even further.
• It added Clause (4) and Clause (5) to Article 368:
- Clause (4): "No amendment... shall be called in question in any court on any ground."
- Clause (5): "There shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament..."
• In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down both clauses as unconstitutional.
• The Court ruled that judicial review and limited amending power are themselves part of the basic structure.
• Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud famously wrote: "The power to destroy is not a power to amend."
Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)
• During the Emergency, the 39th Amendment (1975) was passed to protect Indira Gandhi's election from judicial scrutiny.
• It inserted Article 329A, which placed the election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker beyond judicial review.
• The Supreme Court struck down Clause (4) of Article 329A as violating the basic structure.
• The Court held that free and fair elections, judicial review, and separation of powers are essential features of the Constitution.
I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
• This case dealt with laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (which protects them from judicial review).
• The Supreme Court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati) are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
• The Court reaffirmed that Fundamental Rights and judicial review are integral to the basic structure.
Why the 24th Amendment Matters Today
The Balance of Power
The 24th Amendment represents a critical turning point in the relationship between Parliament and the Judiciary in India:
• Before Golaknath (1967): Parliament believed it had unlimited amending power.
• After Golaknath (1967): The Supreme Court said Parliament could NOT amend Fundamental Rights.
• After 24th Amendment (1971): Parliament reclaimed the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• After Kesavananda Bharati (1973): The Supreme Court said — "Yes, you can amend, but you cannot destroy the basic structure."
The Harmonious Balance
The 24th Amendment, combined with the Basic Structure Doctrine, created a delicate but essential balance:
• Parliament can adapt the Constitution to changing times and social needs.
• The Judiciary ensures that core constitutional values — like democracy, secularism, federalism, and fundamental rights — are never destroyed.
Real-World Impact
• The Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment (1978) — this was possible because of the 24th Amendment's affirmation of Parliament's power.
• Reservation policies and social welfare laws have been upheld and strengthened through constitutional amendments.
• However, attempts to curtail judicial review or democratic freedoms have been struck down by the courts.
Key Takeaways: The 24th Amendment in a Nutshell
• The 24th Amendment (1971) was passed to overturn the Golaknath judgment and restore Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• It amended Article 13 (added Clause 4) to exclude constitutional amendments from the definition of "law."
• It amended Article 368 to explicitly state that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, not just the procedure.
• It made Presidential assent mandatory for constitutional amendment bills.
• It was upheld by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), but the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine as a limit.
• The amendment remains valid and operational today, but its scope is constrained by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Source Links and References
- Official Text of the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 — Legislative.gov.in PDF
- Wikipedia — Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India — Wikipedia Article
- Vajiram & Ravi — 24th Constitutional Amendment Act Background — Vajiramandravi.com
- Indian Journal of Legal Review — 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 — Lawjournals.celnet.in
- EBC India — The Constitution 24th Amendment Act And 25th Amendment Bill — Ebc-india.com
- Drishti IAS — Major Constitutional Amendment: Part 1 — Drishtiias.com
- Indian Kanoon — Article 368 in Constitution of India — Indiankanoon.org
- Cambridge University Press — The Indian Supreme Court and Constitutional Amendments — Cambridge.org
- The Amikus Qriae — 24th Constitutional Amendment: History and Effect — Theamikusqriae.com
- Testbook — 24th Amendment Deals With — Testbook.com
- Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) — Supreme Court Judgment — Judgments.ecourts.gov.in
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980) — Supreme Court Judgment — Indiankanoon.org
- Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975) — Supreme Court Judgment — Wikipedia
- I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) — Supreme Court Judgment — Testbook.com
- National Law University, Assam — Kesavananda Bharati Verdict Analysis — Nluassam.ac.in
Written with detailed research and analysis for constitutional law enthusiasts, students, and anyone interested in understanding the foundations of Indian democracy.
.png)
COMMENTS