Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1971, marked a crucial turning point in the constitutional and judicial history of the Republic of India. This amendment was introduced primarily to reassert Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including those relating to Fundamental Rights, and to nullify the restrictive interpretation laid down by the Supreme Court in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case. It made explicit provisions empowering Parliament to alter the Constitution and imposed an obligation on the President of India to give his assent to constitutional amendment bills once duly passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Background and Context
The necessity for the Twenty-fourth Amendment arose from the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967), where, by a narrow 6–5 majority, the Court ruled that Parliament had no authority to amend or abridge Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that an amendment made under Article 368 was “law” within the meaning of Article 13, which prohibited the State from making laws infringing Fundamental Rights. Consequently, the judgement denied Parliament the power to curtail or modify Fundamental Rights, even to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy, thereby constraining legislative flexibility.
This interpretation was seen as an impediment to social and economic reforms, particularly those involving land redistribution and socio-economic equity. The government led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi considered it imperative to restore the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles by explicitly affirming Parliament’s constituent power to amend the Constitution.
Legislative Development and Enactment
The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 28 July 1971 by H. R. Gokhale, the then Minister of Law and Justice. The Bill proposed amendments to Articles 13 and 368, with two key objectives:
- To clarify that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 do not fall within the scope of Article 13, and thus cannot be declared void on the grounds of infringing Fundamental Rights.
- To reaffirm that Parliament possesses the constituent power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Part III.
The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 4 August 1971 and by the Rajya Sabha on 11 August 1971. It received Presidential assent on 5 November 1971 and came into effect the same day. The amendment was enacted during the tenure of President V. V. Giri and required ratification by at least half of the State Legislatures, as stipulated under Article 368. States including Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu ratified the amendment, while a few, such as Gujarat, Bihar, and Rajasthan, did not.
Key Provisions of the Amendment
The Twenty-fourth Amendment Act, 1971 introduced significant changes to the constitutional framework by amending Articles 13 and 368.
- Amendment to Article 13:A new clause (4) was inserted, stating that “Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.”This ensured that constitutional amendments could not be challenged on the ground that they violated Fundamental Rights.
-
Amendment to Article 368:The Article was renumbered and restructured to clarify Parliament’s amending power:
- A new clause (1) declared that Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend any provision of the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal.
- Clause (2) was modified to make it mandatory for the President to give his assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill once it was duly passed by both Houses of Parliament.
- Clause (3) explicitly excluded the application of Article 13 to constitutional amendments.
These modifications collectively affirmed Parliament’s supremacy in the amendment process, effectively reversing the limitations imposed by the Golaknath ruling.
Parliamentary Debate and Support
During the parliamentary debates, H. R. Gokhale argued that the amendment was necessary to restore the true intent of the framers of the Constitution, who never intended to make Fundamental Rights immutable. He emphasised that Parliament, as the representative of the people, must retain the power to amend any part of the Constitution to promote social and economic justice.
Siddhartha Shankar Ray, then Minister of Education, supported the bill, warning that judgements like Golaknath could have “disastrous consequences” for democratic governance. Opposition voices, however, expressed concerns that the amendment might open the door to authoritarian misuse of constitutional power. Despite these concerns, the amendment passed smoothly through both Houses.
Public and Legal Reception
The Twenty-fourth Amendment attracted significant criticism from sections of the press, legal scholars, and opposition leaders.
- The Hindu described the amendment as “too sweeping in its ambit”, warning that unrestrained parliamentary power could threaten the very spirit of constitutional democracy.
- The Statesman commented that the implications were “breath-taking,” suggesting that Parliament now possessed the power to alter or even abolish fundamental freedoms and federal structure.
Prominent jurists, including M. C. Setalvad, K. Santhanam, and Nani Palkhivala, criticised the amendment as an assault on the rule of law. Former Chief Justice M. C. Chagla labelled it unconstitutional and warned of potential misuse by the executive.
Nevertheless, due to the concurrent Bangladesh Liberation War (1971) and rising national tensions, the general public paid little attention to the constitutional developments.
Judicial Review and the Kesavananda Bharati Case
The validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment was later examined by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which considered the constitutionality of the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments. A thirteen-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history, delivered eleven separate judgments.
The Court upheld the validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, confirming that Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, by a 7–6 majority, the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament’s amending power was vast, it could not alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This ruling preserved essential constitutional features such as the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Political Aftermath and Legacy
The Twenty-fourth Amendment was the first in a series of constitutional changes enacted during Indira Gandhi’s tenure to consolidate executive authority. It was followed by the 25th (1971), 38th (1975), and 39th (1975) Amendments, culminating in the 42nd Amendment (1976) during the Emergency, which further extended parliamentary powers.
While the Twenty-fourth Amendment restored legislative supremacy in amending the Constitution, its long-term consequence was the judicial formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which remains the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. This doctrine continues to serve as a safeguard against excessive parliamentary power, ensuring that the essential democratic, secular, and federal character of the Indian Constitution remains inviolate.
The Twenty-fourth Amendment thus stands as a pivotal moment in India’s constitutional evolution—balancing the will of Parliament with the enduring principles of constitutionalism and judicial oversight.