Scribd
Upload
4 views3 pages

Amendments

Uploaded by

vedanshi verma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views3 pages

Amendments

Uploaded by

vedanshi verma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Constitutional Amendments & Landmark Cases

 1st Amendment (1951)


i. Added Article 31A and 31B; introduced the Ninth Schedule (had 13 enactments at
that time to protect agrarian laws from judicial review.

ii. Landmark Cases

 Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (1951)– Challenged zamindari abolition.


• Shankari Prasad Deo v. UOI (1951) – Upheld the 1st Amendment's validity, and
made a distinction between ordinary legislative power and amending power which
was constituent power. It held that Fundamental Rights are within the reach of
amending process and that Amendment is not a law.

 4th Amendment (1955)


In 1954, Supreme Court delivered four judgments on the interpretation of right to property,
namely:
 Dwarkadas Srinivas v. Sholapur Spinning &Weaving Co. AIR 1954 SC 119
 Sagir Ahmed v. State of U.P. AIR 1954 SC 728
 State of W.B. v. Bela Banerjee AIR 1954 SC 170
 State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose AIR 1954 SC 92
All the four cases involved one common question: Whether the requirement of payment of
compensation in Art. 31(2) also applied to the cases of deprivation of property under Art.
31(1)?
SC refused to accept this and hence, Parliament intervened by introducing the 4th
Amendment.
The amendment added a new Clause 2(A) in Article 31- unless ownership of the property
acquired is transferred to the State, there is no question of payment of compensation.
It separated the Art 31(1) from 31(2) i.e Cases of deprivation were solely covered by Article
31(1) and the requirements of Public Purpose and payment of Compensation were no longer
applicable to a case of deprivation
Issue of adequacy of compensation fixed by law was made non-justiciable.
In Art. 31-A, definition of ‘estate’ was enlarged to include all types of ‘tenures’
Also included more enactments in 9th Schedule. (Total 20)
i. Limited judicial review for property compensation under Article 31; expanded Ninth
Schedule.
 7th Amendment (1956)

 17th Amendment (1964)


Strengthened Article 31A; definition of ‘estate’ in Article 31A(2)(a) enlarged; added 44 more
land reform acts to the Ninth Schedule. (Total 64 Acts)
 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)– Upheld the amendment but Hidayatulla
J. and Mudholkar J. dissented from majority judgment.
• Encouraged and emboldened by the powerful dissent in Sajjan Singh Case, petitions
were filed for reconsideration of the matter by a specially constituted eleven judges
Bench in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643. In this case, the
Court held that an amendment is also a law within the meaning of Article 13; Article
368 only contained procedure for amendment and the power to amend is derived from
Articles 245, 246, 248. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling was applied in this case.
• Judgment dated 27-02-1967 in Golak Nath Case led to enactment of the Constitution
(Twenty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971.
• Likewise, the judgment dated 10-02-1970 in Bank Nationalization Case led to the
enactment of the Constitution (Twenty Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.

 24th Amendment (1971)


It was enacted to overcome the Golak Nath judgment; Amendments were made to Articles
13, 368

25th Amendment (1971)


‘Compensation’ in Art. 31(2) was substituted by ‘amount’; A new Art. 31 C was inserted.
[Art. 39 (b) and (c)]

 29th Amendment (1972)


It added two more Acts to list in 9th Schedule bringing total to 66.
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Constitutional validity of 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendment was questioned; Court by majority
of 7 to 6 held that Power of Parliament is limited, such limitations are inherent and implied
and it does not extend to altering the basic structure and essential features of the Const.
All the Judges upheld the 24th Amendment.
Under the amended Article 368 Parliament had power to amend any provision of
Constitution.
9 out of 13 judges overruled the judgement in Golak Nath case and held that Art. 368 does
not empower Parliament to alter the basic structure of Constitution.
The majority declared the second part of Art. 31 C (inserted by 25th amendment) as
unconstitutional for excluding judicial review.
Judicial Review was held as one of the essential features and hence part of the basic structure
and was beyond the reach of amending power.

 42nd Amendment (1976)


The relevant change- Article 31C (inserted by 25th amendment) now gave primacy to all the
directive principles over fundamental rights.
It also inserted Article 31 D (deleted by 43rd amendment in 1977)

 44th Amendment (1978)


Repealed the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right; made it a Constitutional Right under
Article 300A.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy