The 75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994 is one such amendment. It focuses on something extremely practical and rooted in the daily struggles of pe

75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994

---

Introduction to the 75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994

When we study the Constitution of India, we often come across amendments that deal with huge national issues—federalism, elections, emergency powers, reservations, languages, statehood, and governance structures. But the Constitution also touches upon matters that affect the everyday life of ordinary citizens. The 75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994 is one such amendment. It focuses on something extremely practical and rooted in the daily struggles of people—rent control and rent-related litigations between landlords and tenants.

If you look around any Indian city—Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Lucknow, Bengaluru, or even smaller towns—the relationship between tenants and landlords has always been complex, often tense, sometimes unfair, and almost always slow when it reaches the courts. Thousands of rent cases keep piling up for years without resolution. The government noticed this long, painful delay and decided to create a faster, more efficient mechanism to decide rent-related cases. That’s how the 75th Constitutional Amendment Act came into existence.

The Amendment aimed to empower states to create Rent Tribunals—special courts dedicated solely to rent matters—so that disputes between landlords and tenants could be resolved swiftly, fairly, and without burdening regular civil courts. But interestingly, even though the Amendment was passed, it was never actually enforced by the government. It remains a part of legal conversation, but not applied in real life.

This blog explores everything about this amendment—its background, objective, the issues it tried to solve, what changes it proposed, why it was never implemented, and why it remains relevant even today.

Let’s dive deep, in a simple and human-like writing style.

---

Background: Why India Needed a Rent Tribunal System

To understand the necessity behind the 75th Amendment, we have to understand the condition of rent-related disputes in India during the late 20th century.

1. The Landlord–Tenant Conflict Has a Long History

In India, the relationship between landlords and tenants has always been influenced by:

• High demand for urban housing

• Scarcity of rental accommodation

• Dependence on informal agreements

• Culturally sensitive property ownership

• Strict rent control laws

Because of this, conflicts are common.

2. Rent Control Laws Became Outdated

Most Indian states passed rent control laws shortly after Independence, mainly to protect tenants from eviction and unfair rents. But by the 1980s and 90s, these laws:

• Became outdated

• Discouraged landlords from renting out property

• Led to properties becoming locked, unused, or decaying

• Increased black-market rentals

• Intensified landlord–tenant friction

The need for reform was felt strongly.

3. Civil Courts Were Overloaded

Ordinary civil courts were drowning in cases. Rent-related disputes were no exception. It was common for rent cases to take:

• 5 years

• 10 years

• Even 20+ years

Such delays defeated the entire purpose of justice.

4. Urbanization Increased Disputes

By the 1990s, India’s urban population was rising rapidly. Cities were expanding. Migration increased. Rental housing became essential. Naturally, disputes also increased.

5. Government Commissions Recommended Reform

Several committees, including the National Commission on Urbanization (1988), recommended setting up special tribunals for rent cases. They argued that:

• Civil courts were too slow

• Rent matters needed expertise

• Tribunals could deliver quicker justice

This set the stage for constitutional reform.

---

Why the 75th Amendment Became Necessary

The government realized that small legal changes were not enough. The root problem was deeper. The solution had to be structural. The goal was to create Rent Tribunals similar to:

• Administrative Tribunals (under Article 323A)

• Other specialized tribunals

But there was one problem:

States did not have clear constitutional power to remove rent cases from the jurisdiction of normal courts and shift them to tribunals.

Without a constitutional amendment:

• Civil courts would continue handling rent cases

• Tribunals could be challenged in court

• The system would create duplication

So the 75th Amendment was introduced to give states constitutional authority to establish rent tribunals with full judicial power.

---

Main Objective of the 75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994

The Amendment had one central goal:

To empower State Legislatures to establish Rent Tribunals and exclude the jurisdiction of all courts (except Supreme Court under Article 136) over rent-related disputes.

This meant:

• The state could create a dedicated Tribunal

• Civil courts could no longer hear rent cases

• Appeals would go only to a State-level Tribunal or to the Supreme Court

• Cases would move faster

• Pending cases could be transferred

The objectives were:

• Reduce burden on civil courts

• Provide speedy justice

• Create specialized expertise

• Bring uniformity in rent adjudication

In simple words, the Amendment wanted to create a fast-track rent justice system.

---

What Exactly Did the 75th Amendment Change?

The Amendment inserted a new Article:

Article 323B (with modifications for rent matters)

Under Article 323B, State Legislatures were allowed to create tribunals for:

• Land matters

• Tenancy

• Rent disputes

But rent matters needed deeper clarity. So the 75th Amendment specifically added:

State Legislatures can set up:

• State Rent Tribunals

• Appellate Rent Tribunals

These tribunals would have exclusive jurisdiction over:

• Eviction cases

• Rent fixation

• Landlord–tenant disputes

• Recovery of arrears

• Rent agreement interpretation

These Tribunals would:

• Function like courts

• Have the power of civil courts

• Deliver fast judgments

• Avoid procedural delays

Appeals could be made only to:

• The Supreme Court of India
  Not High Courts (as their jurisdiction was intended to be removed).

---

Why Removing High Court and Civil Court Jurisdiction Was Proposed

One of the most controversial aspects of the Amendment was that it tried to remove the jurisdiction of:

• Civil courts

• High Courts

Why?

1. Civil Courts Were Too Slow

Rent disputes in civil courts took too long due to:

• Long procedures

• Heavy caseload

• Adjournments

• Appeals

• Revisional powers

Tribunals were expected to:

• Simplify procedure

• Increase speed

• Reduce technicality

2. High Court Interference Delayed Cases

High Courts often stayed proceedings, causing massive delays. The Amendment wanted:

• Quicker finality

• Limited layers of appeal

• Streamlined judicial structure

3. Specialized Judges Could Do Better

Tribunal members could include:

• Judges

• Experts in property law

• Retired civil servants

This specialization was expected to improve quality.

---

Why the Amendment Was Passed but Never Implemented

This is the most interesting part:
The Amendment was passed by Parliament, received Presidential assent, but was NEVER brought into force.

Why?

1. Legal Problems with Removing High Court Jurisdiction

Several Supreme Court judgments (like the L. Chandra Kumar case) later held that:

• High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 cannot be fully removed

• Tribunals cannot replace High Courts

• Judicial review is part of the basic structure

Since the Amendment tried to remove High Court jurisdiction, it risked being unconstitutional.

2. Some States Opposed the Amendment

States felt:

• Rent is a sensitive urban issue

• Tribunals may lead to higher central interference

• Existing rent acts needed reform first

3. Too Expensive for States

Setting up:

• Rent Tribunals

• Appellate Tribunals

• Staff

• Infrastructure

was costly.

4. Some Argued That Rent Control Laws Needed Reforms First

The Amendment only created tribunals; it did not fix outdated rent laws.

5. Judiciary Expressed Reservations

Legal experts warned this Amendment may violate separation of powers.

Due to all these reasons, the government never issued a notification to enforce the Amendment.

So technically:

• The 75th Amendment exists
  BUT

• It NEVER became operational law.

---

Impact the Amendment Would Have Had If Implemented

Even though it was never enforced, let’s imagine how it would have changed things:

1. Faster Rent Litigation

Cases would be resolved in months instead of decades.

2. More Confidence for Landlords

Many landlords fear renting because of:

• Long cases

• Difficulty evicting tenants

Tribunals would have solved that.

3. Better Tenant Protection

Tribunals could prevent:

• Unfair evictions

• Illegal rent increases

4. Less Burden on Civil Courts

Civil courts are overloaded. Removing rent cases would help.

5. More Professional Handling of Disputes

Specialized judges would understand rent laws better.

---

Why the Amendment Still Matters Today

Even though it’s dormant, the 75th Amendment is frequently discussed when:

• Talking about rent reforms

• Discussing tribunal systems

• Debating judicial delays

• Considering how to modernize urban housing law

It also forms a part of constitutional study for students and civil service aspirants.

---

Criticisms of the 75th Amendment

Several criticisms were raised:

1. Removing High Court Jurisdiction Violates Basic Structure

Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.

2. Tribunal System Not Always Better

Some tribunals in India have:

• Shortage of judges

• Lack of staff

• Administrative issues

So critics argued that tribunals aren’t always fast.

3. Rent Issues Need Legal Reform, Not Just Speed

Many states still use rent laws from the 1940s and 1950s.

4. May Weaken Tenant Protection

Some believed tribunals might favor landlords.

5. Increased Litigation Instead of Reducing It

Appeal directly to Supreme Court may increase burden.

---

Why Rent Reforms Are Still Needed in India

Even today, rent conflicts are common because:

1. Outdated Rent Acts

Many states have not updated rent acts for decades.

2. Fear of Renting Property

Landlords hesitate due to old laws favoring tenants.

3. High Informal Market

Without clear laws, people rely on informal agreements.

4. Rising Urban Population

More tenants means more disputes.

5. Lack of Fast Judicial Mechanisms

Cases still take years.

---

Long-Term Constitutional Significance

The 75th Amendment is a rare example in Indian constitutional history:

1. Passed but Not Enforced

Very few amendments share this status.

2. Highlighted Need for Judicial Reform

Showed that:

• Civil courts need modernization

• Case delays hurt ordinary people

3. Exposed Flaws in Tribunal System Design

Triggered deeper debates in the Supreme Court.

4. Influenced Future Discussions on Rent Laws

Even today, state governments refer to this amendment while drafting rent reforms.

---

Conclusion

The 75th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1994 is one of the most unusual amendments in India’s constitutional journey. It was passed by Parliament with the intention of solving a very real problem—the painfully slow settlement of rent disputes. It wanted to create a fast-track system through specialized Rent Tribunals. It aimed to reduce the burden on civil courts and offer a smoother process for both landlords and tenants.

But due to constitutional concerns, judicial objections, practical difficulties, and legal complications, the Amendment was never enforced. It remains a powerful example of how not all laws—even when passed—become reality. It stands as a reminder that reforms must be balanced with constitutional principles, practical feasibility, and judicial independence.

Still, the Amendment highlights an essential truth:
India today still urgently needs fast, fair, modern rent dispute mechanisms.
The goals of the 75th Amendment remain relevant, even if the Amendment itself never came into force.