UPSC Prelims 2023 Q34: Amendments That Overrode Court Rulings
In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?
- 1st Amendment
- 42nd Amendment
- 44th Amendment
- 86th Amendment
UPSC dropped this question from evaluation.
Statement-wise explanation
- a: correct — The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951 says that "certain difficulties have been brought to light by judicial decisions and pronouncements specially in regard to the chapter on Fundamental Rights." The Act received assent on 18 June 1951. It added Article 15(4) after the State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan ruling. It widened Article 19(2) with "public order" and "reasonable" restrictions after Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan (1950). It also inserted Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect zamindari-abolition laws that courts had struck down, such as the Bihar Act in Kameshwar Singh. This is the textbook example of an amendment made to overcome judicial interpretations of Fundamental Rights.
- b: incorrect — The 42nd Amendment (1976) was a sweeping Emergency-era change. It added 'socialist', 'secular' and 'integrity' to the Preamble, Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) and tribunals (Part XIVA). It did contain court-curbing parts. It widened Article 31C so that laws for any Directive Principle could not be challenged under Articles 14 and 19, and it added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to bar judicial review of amendments. Both were struck down in Minerva Mills (1980). Its purpose was much wider than undoing a court reading of Fundamental Rights, so it is not the amendment 'widely believed' to have been made for that reason.
- c: incorrect — The 44th Amendment (1978) mainly reversed the excesses of the 42nd. It removed the right to property from Part III (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31) and made it a legal right under Article 300A. It also tightened the rules for declaring an Emergency. Its change to Article 359, which keeps Articles 20 and 21 enforceable during an Emergency, did answer the ADM Jabalpur (1976) ruling. Even so, it is known as a restoration of rights, not as a response to court interpretations.
- d: incorrect — The 86th Amendment (2002) inserted Article 21A, which gives free and compulsory education to children aged 6–14. It also rewrote Article 45 and added the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(k). It followed Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), which read a right to education into Article 21. So it gave effect to a court ruling rather than overcoming one.
How to eliminate
The 86th Amendment drops out quickly. It built on a Supreme Court reading (Unni Krishnan, 1993) instead of overturning one. The 1st Amendment is the standard answer: its own Statement of Objects and Reasons names judicial decisions on Fundamental Rights as the reason it was passed. UPSC most likely dropped the question because two other options can also be defended. The 42nd Amendment widened Article 31C and barred court review of constitutional amendments under Article 368(4)–(5), which reacted to Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and earlier rulings. The 44th Amendment kept Articles 20 and 21 enforceable during an Emergency, which reversed the effect of ADM Jabalpur (1976). The vague phrase "widely believed" gives no test for choosing one of these. Also, the best-known response to a court ruling, the 24th Amendment (1971) after Golak Nath (1967), is not among the options. This cannot be solved by logic alone. Remember that the 1st Amendment (1951) was enacted against Champakam Dorairajan, Romesh Thappar and the zamindari cases, and that the 24th, 25th and 42nd Amendments were later Parliament–court clashes.
Know more
Parliament vs. the courts over Part III
Early Indian constitutional history repeats one pattern. A court strikes down a law under a Fundamental Right, and Parliament amends the Constitution to save the law. That led the Supreme Court to set limits on Parliament's amending power.
| Amendment | Ruling it answered | What it did |
|---|---|---|
| 1st (1951) | Champakam Dorairajan; Romesh Thappar; Kameshwar Singh (Patna HC) | Added Art 15(4), widened Art 19(2), added Arts 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule |
| 4th (1955) | Bela Banerjee (1954), on compensation | Made the adequacy of compensation non-justiciable |
| 17th (1964) | Kunhikoman, on what counts as an 'estate' | Widened the meaning of 'estate' in Art 31A |
| 24th (1971) | Golak Nath (1967) | Confirmed that Parliament can amend any part, including Part III |
| 25th (1971) | Bank Nationalisation case (1970) | Replaced 'compensation' with 'amount'; added Art 31C |
| 42nd (1976) | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Extended Art 31C to all Directive Principles; added Art 368(4)–(5) |
How the courts responded
- Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) upheld the power to amend Part III.
- Golak Nath (1967) held that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973) allowed any amendment that does not damage the basic structure.
- Minerva Mills (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's Art 368(4)–(5) and the expanded Art 31C.
- I.R. Coelho (2007) held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be tested against the basic structure.
Exam tip: the Ninth Schedule and Article 31B came from the 1st Amendment. Article 31C came from the 25th Amendment and was widened by the 42nd. The right to property was removed from Part III by the 44th.
NCERT Concepts to Revise
- 1st Constitutional Amendment Act 1951: One option is this amendment; knowing what it changed and why is central to the question.
- Article 31B: Article 31B shields listed laws from Fundamental Rights challenges, the clearest tool for overriding court rulings.
- Ninth Schedule: The Ninth Schedule is the list protected by Article 31B; knowing who created it helps place the options.
- Judicial review: The question is about Parliament answering courts' judicial review of laws under Part III.
- I.R. Coelho case: This case set the limit on shielding laws through the Ninth Schedule, showing how courts answered such amendments.