Conflict with the judiciary and the personalisation of power

Detail

1. Background: politics turns bitter (1973-75)

• After the 1971 Lok Sabha win, Indira Gandhi's Congress had a huge majority. Politics then became bitter and polarised: each side saw the other as an enemy.
• Opponents' charge: governmental authority (power that belongs to the office and is limited by law) was becoming personal authority (power that depends on one leader's will).
• The fight had two fronts:
• Against the judiciary. The courts kept striking down laws and amendments.
• Inside the party and the state. All power gathered around the Prime Minister. This follows the centralised post-1971 Congress (see congress-system-challenges §10).

2. Three constitutional questions (NCERT, recalling Class 11)

Question	The Court's answer, and what came next
Can Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights (Part III) by amendment?	No, said Golaknath v. State of Punjab (decided 27 February 1967). From that date, Parliament could not amend Part III to take away or cut down Fundamental Rights [9].
Can Parliament curtail the right to property (then a Fundamental Right, Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31) by amendment?	The Court resisted. It struck down the payment terms of bank nationalisation in R.C. Cooper (1970).
Can Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights to give effect to Directive Principles (Part IV, the goals the state should work towards)?	Parliament tried this through Art. 31C (25th Amendment, 1971). The Court tested it in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

3. Flashpoints before Kesavananda (1969-71)

• Bank nationalisation → R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
• 1969: the government nationalised 14 private banks [5].
• Shareholder Rustom Cavasjee Cooper went to court. He said the law did not pay adequate compensation. He argued it broke the right to property (Art. 31) and the freedom to carry on business (Art. 19(1)(g)) [5].

• The Supreme Court agreed and struck down the key part of the law [5].

• Privy purses → Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1970)

• Privy purses were yearly payments promised to former princely rulers (Art. 291).
• The government ended them by a presidential order. The Court struck that order down in 1970.

• Parliament replied with the 26th Amendment, 1971. It added Art. 363A, which ended the rulers' recognition and abolished privy purses. The Act got the President's assent on 28 December 1971 [8].

• These clashes made the Congress call the Court conservative. In its view, the Court was an obstacle to pro-poor programmes and to parliamentary supremacy (the idea that elected MPs should have the final word).

4. Parliament's counter-attack: the 24th and 25th Amendments (1971)

• 24th Amendment, 1971
• Changed Art. 368 (Parliament's power to amend the Constitution).

• Made clear that Art. 368 gives a real power to amend, not just a procedure. This brought Fundamental Rights back under the amending power, reversing Golaknath [3].

• 25th Amendment, 1971

• Aimed to reverse R.C. Cooper [5].
• Changed Art. 31 and inserted Art. 31C [4][5].
• Art. 31C, first part: a law giving effect to Art. 39(b) (fair distribution of material resources) or Art. 39(c) (no concentration of wealth) cannot be held void for breaking Art. 14, 19 or 31 [7].

• Art. 31C, second part: courts could not question whether such a law really gave effect to that policy [6].

• How an amendment under Art. 368 is passed (the power at the centre of this fight): 1. A bill is introduced in either House of Parliament. 2. Each House passes it separately by a special majority: a majority of the House's total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting. 3. Bills touching federal provisions must also be ratified by at least half the state legislatures, by simple majority. 4. The President gives assent. After the 24th Amendment (1971), the President must give assent [3].

5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973)

• Bench: 13 judges, the largest Supreme Court bench so far. They were S.M. Sikri (CJ), Shelat, Hegde, Grover, Ray, Palekar, Khanna, Mathew, Beg, Jaganmohan Reddy, Dwivedi, Mukherjea and Chandrachud [2].
• Holding (7:6):
• Golaknath was overruled. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights [2].

• But Art. 368 does not let Parliament change the basic structure of the Constitution [2].

• Basic structure = the core features that make the Constitution what it is. Parliament can amend any part, but it cannot destroy these. The judges listed features such as:

• supremacy of the Constitution
• republican and democratic form of government
• secular character

• separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary [2]

• How the judges split:

• Six judges (Sikri, Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Reddy) accepted the basic-structure limit [2].
• Six others (Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, Chandrachud) did not [2].

• Justice H.R. Khanna cast the deciding vote. He accepted the basic-structure limit, so it became the majority view [2].

• Effect on Art. 31C:

• The first part survived.

• The second part was struck down, because it blocked judicial review (the courts' power to check whether laws and amendments follow the Constitution) [6].

• Later history:

• The 42nd Amendment (1976) widened Art. 31C to cover all Directive Principles [6].

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) struck that widening down. It held that the balance between Part III and Part IV is itself part of the basic structure [6].

• The Congress called the judgment conservative and anti-poor.

6. First supersession of judges (25 April 1973)

• Supersession means passing over senior judges and appointing a junior one as Chief Justice. This broke the convention that the senior-most judge becomes Chief Justice of India.
• The chain of events:
• 24 April 1973: Kesavananda is decided against the government.
• 25 April 1973: the government passes over three senior judges, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover. All three had ruled against the government.
• Justice A.N. Ray becomes Chief Justice. He was in the minority in Kesavananda and did not accept the basic-structure limit [2].

• The three superseded judges resign.

• The government's defence: in Parliament, minister Mohan Kumaramangalam argued that the government could look at a judge's social philosophy and outlook, not just seniority. (Beyond NCERT.)

• Legal anchor: Art. 124(2). The President appoints Supreme Court judges after "consultation" with judges. In 1973 the executive had the final say, because the collegium system (judges choosing judges) came only later. See judiciary.

7. "Committed" judiciary and bureaucracy

• People close to the PM said judges and civil servants should be "committed" to the government's social and economic vision.
• Supporters said this meant commitment to pro-poor goals, such as land reform and abolishing privy purses.
• NCERT's question: does "committed" mean being loyal to the ruling party and its leader?
• Critics said it attacked two things:
• judicial independence (judges deciding without fear of the government)
• a neutral civil service (officials serving whichever party wins)

8. Second supersession (January 1977)

• In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the Court ruled 4:1 that during the Emergency, a detained person could not go to court through habeas corpus (a writ asking the state to produce a detained person and justify the detention). See §6.
• Justice H.R. Khanna was the only dissenter. He held that the right to life and liberty cannot be suspended.
• January 1977: when CJ Ray retired, M.H. Beg was made Chief Justice ahead of the senior-most judge, Khanna. Khanna resigned.

	First supersession	Second supersession
Date	25 April 1973	January 1977
Trigger	Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973)	ADM Jabalpur dissent (1976)
Judges passed over	Shelat, Hegde, Grover	H.R. Khanna
Appointed CJI	A.N. Ray	M.H. Beg
Result	All three resigned	Khanna resigned

9. Personalisation of power: "Indira is India, India is Indira"

• The slogan: "India is Indira, Indira is India", coined by Congress president D.K. Barooah in 1974. It treated one leader as if she were the nation.
• Why it matters:
• It marks the peak of the personality cult around Indira Gandhi.

• Personality cult = a leader praised so much that loyalty to the person replaces loyalty to the party, the institutions or the Constitution.

• The NCERT cartoon shows Barooah standing behind Indira Gandhi's chair. It mocks how far party loyalty had turned into personal loyalty.

• The link to the judiciary fight: if criticising the leader counts as criticising the nation, then courts, the press and the opposition start to look like "enemies".
• The climax: the Allahabad High Court judgment of 12 June 1975. It declared Indira Gandhi's 1971 election to the Lok Sabha void (§4). This led to the Emergency.

Prelims Hooks

• Golaknath (1967): Parliament cannot amend Part III to abridge Fundamental Rights. It was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
• Kesavananda Bharati was decided on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench with a 7:6 majority. It gave the basic structure doctrine. Justice H.R. Khanna cast the deciding vote.
• 24th Amendment (1971) → Art. 368 changed, and President's assent to amendment bills made compulsory.
• 25th Amendment (1971) → Art. 31C added (laws for Art. 39(b) and (c) protected against Art. 14, 19 and 31). It reversed R.C. Cooper (1970).
• 26th Amendment (1971) → Art. 363A added. Privy purses and rulers' recognition ended. It followed Madhav Rao Scindia (1970).
• Trap: Kesavananda upheld the first part of Art. 31C. It struck down only the part that barred judicial review.
• 25 April 1973: A.N. Ray became CJI over Shelat, Hegde and Grover. January 1977: M.H. Beg became CJI over H.R. Khanna.
• "India is Indira, Indira is India": D.K. Barooah, Congress president, 1974. It was not said by Indira Gandhi herself.
• 42nd Amendment (1976) widened Art. 31C to all Directive Principles. Minerva Mills (1980) struck this down.

Mains Points

• Parliamentary supremacy vs judicial review (GS-II):
• The 1967-73 fight shows the tension between an elected majority's mandate for change and the courts' role as guardian of rights.

• The basic structure doctrine settled it. Parliament can change almost anything, but not the Constitution's identity.

• Judicial independence and appointments (GS-II):

• The 1973 and 1977 supersessions showed the danger of the executive having the last word on choosing the CJI.

• This later led to the seniority convention and the collegium. The debate continues through the NJAC case (2015) and calls for transparency.

• "Committed" institutions vs neutral institutions (GS-II/GS-IV):

• Commitment to the Constitution's values is good.

• Commitment to a party or leader destroys checks and balances. The same applies to the civil service.

• Personality cult and democratic decay (GS-I):

• "Indira is India" shows how putting all power in one person weakens the party, Parliament and the courts.
• This was a key cause of the 1975 Emergency.