Introduction
Enacted in 1971, the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) sought to restore Parliament's absolute amending power, directly abrogating the Supreme Court's ruling in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had previously held that Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution were immutable and beyond the reach of constitutional amendments.
Key Provisions of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
- Insertion of Article 13(4): It explicitly declared that constitutional amendments enacted under Article 368 are not considered 'law' within the meaning of Article 13. This was designed to shield constitutional amendments from judicial review on grounds of violating Fundamental Rights.
- Expansion of Article 368: The amendment modified the marginal heading and text of Article 368 from merely detailing 'Procedure for amendment of the Constitution' to declaring Parliament's 'Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor'. It clarified that Parliament, in the exercise of its constituent power, can amend, add, or repeal any provision of the Constitution, including Part III.
- Mandatory Presidential Assent: It amended Article 368(2) by substituting the phrasing to make it obligatory for the President to grant assent to Constitutional Amendment Bills passed by both Houses, leaving no room for executive veto.
Judicial Evolution and the Constitutional Tug-of-War
The amendment represented a climactic moment in the ongoing conflict between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review in India:
- Golaknath Case (1967): The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights enjoy a transcendental position and cannot be amended by Parliament under Article 368.
- 24th Amendment Act (1971): Parliament enacted the amendment to assert complete constituent authority over all parts of the Constitution.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court resolved the conflict by establishing the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
Impact and the Kesavananda Bharati Verdict (1973)
In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ruling, an eleven-judge constitutional bench upheld the formal validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act. The Court confirmed that Parliament does possess the power under Article 368 to amend Fundamental Rights. However, the Court simultaneously formulated the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament's amending power is constituent but not unlimited: it cannot alter, destroy, or emasculate the core tenets and fundamental framework of the Constitution, such as the rule of law, democracy, and judicial review.
Conclusion
While the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act was an attempt to establish unfettered parliamentary sovereignty over constitutional provisions, it paradoxically catalyzed the emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This legal development established a permanent equilibrium between legislative authority and constitutional supremacy in India.