Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India

The Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India (1976)—enacted during the Emergency declared on 25 June 1975—was the most expansive single constitutional revision since 1950. Often styled the “Mini-Constitution”, it sought to entrench parliamentary supremacy, curtail the higher judiciary’s powers of review, reconfigure Centre–State relations in favour of the Union, insert Fundamental Duties, and alter the Preamble by adding the descriptors “socialist” and “secular” and the phrase “unity and integrity of the nation.” Passed by the Fifth Lok Sabha and ratified by more than half the States, its provisions were phased into force between January and April 1977. Subsequent governments, notably through the Forty-third (1977) and Forty-fourth (1978) Amendments, partially rolled back its reach, while the Supreme Court’s later jurisprudence restored constitutional balance using the basic structure doctrine.

Political Background and Objectives

The Amendment arose from a convergence of political and constitutional concerns during the Emergency: the Executive’s desire for predictable governance without judicial impediment; the ruling party’s commitment to Directive Principles and centralised planning; and perceived institutional friction after landmark rulings such as Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati, and R. C. Cooper. Officially justified as aligning the Constitution with “the realities of the present time and the future,” the measure aimed to:

• Recast amendment power, insulating Article 368 from judicial attack and asserting that Parliament’s constituent power had no limitation.
• Prioritise Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights in specified spheres, limiting rights-based invalidation of socio-economic legislation.
• Narrow judicial review, particularly over constitutional amendments and a wide swathe of ordinary laws and emergency actions.
• Strengthen the Union executive and recalibrate Centre–State arrangements to favour national uniformity.
• Codify civic obligations via Fundamental Duties.

Legislative Course and Commencement

Introduced on 1 September 1976 by the Law Minister H. R. Gokhale, the Bill traversed extensive clause-by-clause deliberations in both Houses. Many clauses passed substantially as introduced; several were amended on the floor. After State ratifications, Presidential assent issued on 18 December 1976. The provisions commenced in three tranches: 3 January 1977, 1 February 1977, and 1 April 1977, reflecting administrative sequencing and transitional requirements.

Reconfiguration of Amendment Power and Judicial Review

At the core lay the reworking of Article 368 to state that a constitutional amendment “shall not be called in question in any court on any ground,” and that no limitation inhered in Parliament’s constituent power. The Amendment also introduced devices to channel and confine constitutional litigation, including provisions (later repealed) that restricted High Courts’ jurisdiction and enhanced Parliament’s ability to “evolve” privileges for itself and State legislatures. Read with contemporaneous Emergency-era amendments, this architecture sought to tilt the separation of powers decisively toward the Legislature–Executive axis.

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and New Insertions

A signature move was the attempted primacy of Directive Principles over specified Fundamental Rights, accomplished by expanding Article 31C so that no law giving effect to Part IV could be struck down for violating Articles 14 or 19. The Amendment also inserted new provisions to further socio-economic governance:

• Article 39A: Free legal aid and equal justice.
• Article 43A: Worker participation in management.
• Article 48A: Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.

In tandem, the Amendment inserted Part IVA (Article 51A), enumerating Fundamental Duties of citizens (e.g., to abide by the Constitution, cherish ideals of the freedom struggle, protect the environment, promote harmony, and safeguard public property). Although non-justiciable, these duties have since informed statutory interpretation and policy design.

Emergency Framework and Executive Power

The Amendment tightened the Emergency regime. It enlarged the scope and endurance of Emergency measures, modified Articles 352, 356, 357, 358 and 359, and formally stipulated in Article 74 that the President shall act in accordance with ministerial advice, clarifying any residual ambiguity in the Westminster model as adapted in India. It also ensured that laws made during President’s Rule would continue post-proclamation until altered by the State legislature, reinforcing continuity of central administration after constitutional breakdown in a State.

Federal Relations, Parliament and Electoral Architecture

Centre–State relations were recalibrated to augment Union authority. The Amendment:

• Adjusted legislative entries and operational spheres to enable greater central coordination.
• Extended the normal term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from five to six years (a change later repealed by the Forty-fourth Amendment).
• Froze delimitation and the total number of seats in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies until after the 2001 Census (later extended to 2026), stabilising representation patterns and freezing SC/ST seat reservations proportions over the same horizon.
• Altered institutional provisions across Parliament and State legislatures, including Articles 105 and 194 on privileges.

The Preamble: Ideological and Integrational Additions

The Preamble’s textual revision re-described India as a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic” and replaced “unity of the nation” with “unity and integrity of the nation.” While secular and socialist policies were already reflected through Parts III and IV, constitutionalising these terms foregrounded the State’s welfare and plural commitments and emphasised territorial integrity during a period of perceived internal challenge.

Judicial Response and Partial Rollback

Post-Emergency, constitutional equilibrium was progressively restored:

• The Forty-third (1977) and Forty-fourth (1978) Amendments repealed or modified several Forty-second provisions, notably the priority of Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and the extension of legislative terms. They also revived and reinforced judicial review of emergencies and executive satisfaction.
• In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 (expanded Article 31C) and Section 55 (the clause foreclosing judicial scrutiny of amendments and asserting unlimited constituent power), reaffirming that Parliament’s amending power is limited by the basic structure. The Court characterised Articles 14, 19 and 21 as a “golden triangle” safeguarding liberty and equality, and held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature.

Administrative, Environmental and Access-to-Justice Legacies

Despite reversals, several Forty-second innovations endure:

• Article 39A catalysed institutionalisation of legal services and legal aid, widening access to courts.
• Article 48A seeded environmental constitutionalism, later invigorated by judicial development of the public trust doctrine, precautionary principle, and polluter pays.
• Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) continue to inform public policy and curricular initiatives, and occasionally guide courts in balancing rights with civic responsibility.

Assessment and Significance

The Forty-second Amendment marks a constitutional stress-test of Indian democracy. Its ambition to formalise parliamentary supremacy, compress judicial oversight, and centralise governance revealed the outer limits of constitutional change within a rights-based, federal republic. The political repudiation of the Emergency in 1977, the partial legislative rollbacks, and the Supreme Court’s articulation of a substantive constraint—the basic structure doctrine—jointly re-anchored the settlement around constitutional supremacy, judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights. Yet the Amendment’s durable strands—access to justice, environmental protection, and civic duties—also show how even contested reforms can enrich the constitutional mosaic when adapted through democratic correction and judicial stewardship.