SHANKARI PRASHAD CASE (1951)
Within a year of our Constitution came into force, the first Amendment Act of 1951 attempted to curtail the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
This led Shankari Prashad case to challenge the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act of 1951 and sought for the first time the most basic question whether the Article 368 empowered the Parliament to amend the Fundamental Rights bestowed by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court interpreted that the right conferred to the Parliament to amend laws under the Article 368 also included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. In Golaknath Case of 1967, the Supreme Court, however, revoked its stand on Shankari Prashad Case 1951.
BERUBARI CASE (1958)
The international border between India and Pakistan was demarcated by Sir Radcliffe, famously known as Radcliffe line. It was then a monstrous task to describe the fate of each boarder thanas individually and mention to which country each thana was going to be part of. While describing boundaries of each thana Sir Radcliff inadvertently omitted to mention one of the thanas called Thana Boda and in addition to it an erroneous depiction on the map advantaged Pakistan to claim as its part. The dispute was attempted to be resolved through Nehru-Noon Agreement 1958 where half of Beruberi Union 12 was to be transferred to Pakistan and half to be retained by India.
Although the Article no. 3 empowers the Parliament to alter and diminish the boundary of a state but it was not clear whether it had the power to cede a portion of Indian territory to a foreign country. This provoked political agitations and simultaneously raised the question of constitutional validity of the transfer agreement between India and Pakistan. On the referral of President the Supreme Court reviewed the legal validity of the transfer of territory under Article 3 and upheld that the Article 3 did not empower the Parliament to cede a part of Indian territory to foreign entity. This forced the Parliament to enact law through 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960, for pursuing transfer of part of Beruberi Union to Pakistan.
GOLOKNATH CASE (1967)
In the Golaknath Case, the Supreme Court of India ruled a judgment, which decimated the power of the Parliament to take away, or abridge any “fundamental rights” which are sacrosanct in nature. In this landmark ruling the Supreme Court overruled its previous judgment (Shankari Prashad Case, 1951), which held that the Parliament could amend the fundamental rights through the enactment of Constitutional Amendments Acts.
The Parliament retaliated to the Supreme Court by enacting 24th Amendment Act (1971) and 25th Amendment Act (1971). While the former explicitly empowered the Parliament to take away or abridge fundamental rights by enacting Constitutional Amendments and the latter inserted two clauses under the Article 31C . According to the Article 31C, 1) no law can be invalidated on the ground of Fundamental Rights if the intention of the law is to achieve socialistic objectives of Directive Principles mentioned in Article 39 b & c ii)
KESAVANANDA BHARTI CASE (1973)
Article 368 of Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention any legislative restriction regarding the amendment power of the Parliament. Through Kesavananda Bharti case the Judiciary intended to clarify if the Article 368 warranted the Parliament an unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution. In this historical landmark judgment the 13 Judges bench with a 7-6 ratio ruled that the Parliament’s power to amend is limited – the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution so long it does not hurt the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
Nani Palkhivala an eminent jurist argued before the court for his plaintiff Kesavananda Bharati who filed the case against the State Govt. of Kerala. Chief Justice of India Justice Sikri delivered the judgment on 24th April 1973.
MINERVA MILL CASE (1980)
The 25th Amendment Act of 1971 inserted two clauses under the Article 31C. a) No law can be invalidated on the ground of Fundamental Rights if the intention of the law is to achieve any socialistic objectives of Directive Principles mentioned in Article 39 b and c.
Through 42nd Amendment Act the Parliament extended the scope of formulating laws with protection beyond the Directive Principles mentioned in the Article 39 b & c. The 42nd Amendment Act thus attempted to establish supremacy of Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights.
In the landmark judgment of Minerva Mill case, the Supreme Court invalided this extension and observed that both the objectives of the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are essential components of our Constitution and one cannot be achieved at the cost of other. The Supreme Court declared sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court also observed that the power of the Parliament to Amend the Constitution is limited and therefore the Constitutional machinery cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. At present, the Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles
BOMMAI CASE (1994)
In the Bommai Case the Supreme Court emphasized that “federalism” is a basic structure of our Constitution. In the landmark judgment of Bommai v. Union of India Case the Supreme Court laid down various strict parameters in the context of implementation of Article 356.
- The satisfaction of President for the proclamation of 356 is not beyond judicial review.
- The Article 356 provides an exceptional power to the Parliament therefore it is to be exercised while dealing with extremely exceptional cases.
- The majority enjoyed by the incumbent government should test in the floor of the House.
- Center should give warning to the state.
- The Court is not in power to question the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but it can examine the material that led to President’s satisfaction.