Constitution of India, 1950-Article 368 before Constitution (Twenty Fourth) Amendment Act, 1971-Nature and scope of the amending power.

Article 13(2)-'Law' in 13(2) if includes amendment of the Constitution- Distinction between legislative power and constituent power.

Article 368-"Amendment" meaning of "Amendment" if includes the power to abrogate the Constitution-If includes the power to alter the basic structure or frame-work of the Constitution,

Fundamental Rights-If amendment can take away or abridge the rights guaranteed in Part III.

Fundamental Rights-If inalienable natural rights so as to operate as restriction on the amending power.

Implied and inherent limitations-Power of amendment if subject to inherent or implied limitations.

Preamble-Nature-Preamble, if operates as a source of implied limitation on the power of amendment.

Constitution (Twenty Fourth) Amendment Act 1971-Validity of-Amendment if enlargement of the limits of the Amending power.

Article 368-If there are inherent or implied limitations in the article as amended.

Constitution (Twenty Fifth) Amendment Act, 1971-Validity of.

Section 2(a) & (b)-Substitution of amount' for 'compensation'-Exclusion of article 19(1)(f) to law in article 31(2)-If abrogates th32559e basic structure of the Constitution-Meaning of 'amount-Scope of judicial review of adequacy.

Section 3-Introduction of new article 31C-Nature and object of the article- Article if abrogates the essential features of the Constitution If amounts to delegation of amending power to state legislatures-Effect of Declaration-Nexus of law under the article to the directives in article 39(b) and (c), if subject to judicial review.

Directive Principles of State Policy-Importance in the constitutional scheme- Relation with fundamental rights. Property, right to-Nature of the right.

Constitution (Twenty Ninth) Amendment Act, 1972-Validity of-Article 31B and 31A-If interrelated.

Judicial Review Limits of Place of judicial review in the constitutional scheme.

Interpretation-Rules of Constitutional interpretation-Constituent Assembly Debates, relevancy of.

The question whether the fundamental rights set out in Part III of the Constitution could be taken away or abridged by amendment of the Constitution was first considered by this Court in Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, [1952] S.C.R. 89. In Sankari Prasad the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, was challenged. The First Amendment made changes in articles 15 and 19 of the Constitution and inserted articles 31A and 31B. The principal contention was that the First Amendment in so far as it purported to take away or abridge the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution fell within the prohibition of article 13(2) of the Constitution. The Court unanimously held that the word 'law' in article 13(2) was relatable to exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution and that the terms of article 368 were general to empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception. The question came up again in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 938, wherein the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act 1964, was challenged. The majority view in Sajjan Singh was that article 368 plainly and unambiguously meant amendment of all provisions of the Constitution and that the word "law' in article 13(2) did not take in Constitution Amendments. Thereafter, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Court, six against five, held that an amendment of the Constitution was 'law' within the meaning of article 13(2); therefore, if an amendment took away or abridged the fundamental rights it was void, that the Constitution First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments abridged fundamental rights but were valid on the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling or acquiescence and that Parliament had no power from the date of the decision to amend any of the provisions of Part III so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights.

One of the amendments affecting the right to property was the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. The Amendment Act had enacted that no law providing for compulsory acquisition or requisitioning "shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate". The amendment was passed to get over the interpretation given by the Court in State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee, [1954] S.C.R. 674, to the word 'compensation' viz., just equivalent or full indemnification for the property expropriated. The effect of the amendment was considered by this. Court in Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Deputy Collector, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614. The Court took the view that the fact that Parliament used the same expressions, namely, 'compensation' and 'principles', as were found in article 31 before the amendment, was clear indication that Parliament accepted the meaning given by the Court to those expressions in Bela Banerjee's case. In Union of India v. Metal Corporation, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 255 the Court struck down the Metal Corporation (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act 1965, because the principles for determining the compensation laid down in the Act did not represent the just equivalent of the property taken. Later, in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangal Das, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 341, the Court overruled the decision in Metal Corporation case. The Court held that a challenge to a statute that the principles specified by it did not award a just equivalent would be in clear violation of the Constitutional declaration that adequacy of compensation provided was not justiciable, that just equivalent was not capable of precise determination by the application of any recognised principles and that "apart from the practical difficulties the law declared by this Court also placed serious obstacles in giving effect to the directive principles of State policy incorporated in article 39". Thereafter, in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India (The Bank Nationalisation Case) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 530 the Court by a majority, ten against one, held that even after the Fourth Amendment "Compensation" meant "the equivalent in terms of money of the property compulsorily acquired" "according to relevant principles which principles must be appropriate to the determination of compensation for the particular class of property sought to be acquired".

Arguments were addressed mainly in Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970. In this Writ Petition the petitioner had challenged the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 and the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971, for the reason that some of the provisions thereof violated articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the Writ Petition Parliament passed three constitution amendments, namely the Cons- titution Twenty Fourth, Twenty Fifth and Twenty Ninth Amendment Acts.

The Constitution Twenty Fourth Amendment Act amended article 368. It enacted that Parliament may, in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in that article. The other part of the amendment is that nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment under article 368.

The Constitution Twenty Fifth Amendment Act amended article 31(2) and article 31(2-A). Section 2 of the Amendment Act substituted the word "amount" for the word "compensation" and excluded the application of article 19(1)(f) to a law under article 31(2). It was also made clear that no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash. Section 3 introduced new article 31C. It empowered Parliament and State Legislatures to enact law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the directive principles in clause (b) or cl. (c) of article 39 and no such law could be questioned on the ground that it took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by articles 14, 19 and 31. Further, the amendment laid down that "no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy". The provisions of the article were not to be applied to a law made by the Legislature of a state unless such law received the assent of the President. The Constitution (Twenty Ninth). Amendment Act included the Kerala and Reforms Acts in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution making them immune from attack on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the three Constitution Amendment Acts.