Scribd
Upload
86 views12 pages

Constitutional Imperatives and Objectives Relating To Agrarian Reforms

Uploaded by

Amartya Prakash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views12 pages

Constitutional Imperatives and Objectives Relating To Agrarian Reforms

Uploaded by

Amartya Prakash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES

AND OBJECTIVES RELATING TO A Story of Constitutional


Provisions and Amendments
AGRARIAN REFORMS
INTRODUCTION
After independence, land reforms occupied center stage in Indian policy.

Article 39(b) : Embodies the need for land reform in Constitution.

Article 19(1)(f) : Right to acquire, hold and dispose property.

Article 31: No person shall be deprived of his property without the authority of law.

Article 31(2): Property could be compulsorily acquired or relinquished for a ‘public


purpose’.
TIMELINE
September 11,1950: Bihar Land Reforms Act introduced.

A notification on the same day stated that estates of Kameshwar Singh, the Rajah of
Durbanga and two other zamindars had become vested under the state of Bihar under
provisions of the act.

Challenged in Patna High Court.

Held unconstitutional on the grounds of infringing Article 14 of the Constitution.


1 AMENDMENT ACT
ST

June 18 1951: Constitution’s 1st Amendment Act

Introduction of Article 31A (definition of ‘estate’ and protection from fundamental rights) and
Article 31B (the 9th schedule).

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)

-In this case, the SC contended that the Parliament’s power of amending the Constitution under
Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.

-The First Amendment was uphelpd.


17TH AMENDMENT ACT
Issues with compensation amount and providing for ceiling over the extent of land.
Karimbil Kunhikoman and Another v. State of Kerala (1962).
-Kerala Agarian Relations Act.
-Issue of definition of the word ‘estate’.
1964 : Seventeenth Amendment Act.
Widened the scope of 31A and added multiple acts to the 9 th schedule
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
- 17th Constitutional Amendment - challenged
- In this case also, the SC held that the Parliament can amend any part of the
Constitution including the Fundamental Rights.
-Hidayatullah J. and Mudolkar J. - Dissent
Golak Nath v. the State of Punjab (1967)

-Three writ petitions were clubbed together.

-The first one was by children of Golak Nath, against the inclusion of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, 1953 in the Ninth Schedule. The other two petitions had challenged the
inclusion of the Mysore Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule.

-11 judge bench decision, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a majority of 6:5 held that
the fundamental rights were outside the purview of the amendment of the Constitution.

-This case conferred upon Fundamental Rights a ‘transcendental position’.

-The majority judgement called upon the concept of implied limitations on the power of the
Parliament to amend the Constitution.
24TH AMENDMENT ACT
Constitution 24th Amendment
-A new clause (4) was added to Article 13
-The marginal heading of Article 368 was changed to ‘Power of Parliament to amend
the Constitution and Procedure, therefore’
-Article 368 was provided with a new sub-clause (1)
-President was put under an obligation to give assent to any Bill amending the
Constitution
-A reassuring clause (3) was also added to Article 368, which again clarified that
‘nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article.
CONSTITUTION 25TH AMENDMENT AND 26TH AMENDMENT ACT

Constitution 25th Amendment added Article 31C-Dividing 31C in two parts.

No law which gives effect to the directive principles can be declared invalid and
unconstitutional on the grounds that it is violating fundamental rights namely Article
14, 19 and 31.

No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned
in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

Constitution 26th amendment abolished privy purses.


CONSTITUTION 29TH
AMENDMENT
Place land reform acts and amendments to these acts under Schedule 9 of the
constitution.
24th Amendment along with 25th, 26th and 29th amendments were challenged in
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973).
filed to challenge the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 placed under
the 9th schedule through 29th amendment of the Constitution.
 The petitioner was permitted to not only challenge the 29th Amendment but also the
validity of the 24th and 25th Amendments.
The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental
Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the
Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.”
The judgement implied that the parliament can only amend the constitution and not
rewrite it. The power to amend is not a power to destroy.

The judges did not provide what constitutes the basic structure but provided an
illustrative list of what may constitute the basic structure.

This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any
amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the
Constitution.
42ND AND 44TH AMENDMENT
ACT
42nD Amendment Act (1976)
 Mini Constitution of India.
Added Article 368(4) and 368(5) which conferred unlimited amending power to the
parliament.
 Article 31-C amended again.
44th Amendment Act (1978)
Removed right to property from part III and inserted Part XII (300A).
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
-The judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment
Act 1976
-A limited amending power was very well part of the basic structure doctrine of the
Constitution.
-The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.
Waman Rao Case (1981)
-The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine.
-The Waman Rao case held that amendments made to the 9th Schedule until the Kesavananda
judgement are valid, and those passed after that date can be subject to scrutiny.

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