📜 First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951

👉 Passed on: 18th June 1951
👉 President: Dr. Rajendra Prasad
👉 PM: Jawaharlal Nehru

---

🧭 CONTEXT: What happened just after the Constitution came into force?

The Constitution came into effect on 26th January 1950.
Within a few months, the Fundamental Rights (especially Article 19 and 31) were being used in courts to strike down major reform laws.

---

⚖️ KEY PROBLEM: Judiciary vs. Parliament

✅ Fundamental Rights guaranteed:

• Article 19(1)(f) – Right to property
• Article 31 – Protection from property acquisition without compensation

---

🔥 Real Issue:

🧾 Parliament passed land reform laws to redistribute land to poor farmers (like Zamindari Abolition Acts).
⚖️ But Courts struck them down, saying they violated Right to Property.

Example:

• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1951) – Court struck down land reform laws.

---

🧨 This angered the government. Nehru called it a “Judicial roadblock” to social justice.

---

🛠️ So, Government brought 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) to:

🔧 1. Protect land reform laws

→ Added Articles 31A and 31B
→ Protected laws related to land reforms from being challenged under FRs.

🛡️ 2. Added the 9th Schedule

→ Any law put under this schedule was shielded from judicial review.

🗣️ 3. Amended Article 19

→ Allowed the State to impose “reasonable restrictions” on:

• Freedom of speech and expression (to stop misuse)
• Freedom to form associations
• Freedom to practise any profession, etc.

⚖️ What is a Constitutional Bench?

A Constitutional Bench is a bench of the Supreme Court of India constituted to decide important questions of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

---

✅ Legal Basis: Article 145(3)

“The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be five.”

So yes:

✅ Minimum number of judges in a Constitutional Bench = 5

---

🔢 Odd Number Rule – Is It Always Odd?

✅ Yes, in practice, Constitutional Benches always have an odd number of judges.

❓ Why?

Because:

• It avoids a tie in the final judgment.
• A majority opinion must be reached to pronounce the decision.

📘 Major Constitutional Bench Cases: Article 13 vs. 368 & Basic Structure Doctrine

🏛️ 1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) – [5-Judge Bench]

🔹 Issue:

Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights using Article 368, or will Article 13 invalidate such an amendment?

🔹 Background:

• Parliament passed the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect land reform laws.
• This amendment added Articles 31A, 31B, and introduced the 9th Schedule.
• It was challenged for violating Right to Property under Article 31 and equality under Article 14.

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

An amendment is also a “law” under Article 13(2), and since it violates FRs, it should be void.

🔹 Government’s Argument:

Amendments made under Article 368 are not “law” under Article 13, so Article 13 doesn’t apply.

🔹 Judgment:

• Supreme Court held that Constitutional Amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

🔹 Impact:

• Gave Parliament full amending power under Article 368.
• Upheld the 1st Amendment and supported land reform.
• Set the tone for future conflicts between Parliament and Judiciary on Constitutional amendments.

🏛️ 2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) – [5-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights using Article 368, even after judicial review was strengthened post-Shankari Prasad?

---

🔹 Background:

• In 1964, Parliament passed the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act to further protect land reform laws by adding more acts to the 9th Schedule and amending Article 31A.
• This was again challenged in the Supreme Court for violating Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedom).

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:
Constitutional amendments that affect Fundamental Rights should be subject to Article 13, and hence void if they violate those rights.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:
Reiterated the position from Shankari Prasad — a constitutional amendment is not a “law” under Article 13, and Parliament has full power under Article 368.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld the 17th Amendment.
• Reaffirmed that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Amendments are not “law” under Article 13, so Article 13 does not restrict Article 368.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Reconfirmed Parliament’s power to amend FRs.
• However, Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar expressed concern: “Should there be some implied limits on Parliament’s amending power?”
  This laid the foundation for the Golaknath case (1967), which would question this logic more deeply.

🏛️ 3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – [11-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights, or are such amendments restricted by Article 13?

---

🔹 Background:

• The 17th Constitutional Amendment (1964) had added more land reform laws to the 9th Schedule, which were seen as violating Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(f) (right to property).
• The petitioners (the Golaknath family) challenged this amendment, claiming Parliament had no power to alter Fundamental Rights.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• A Constitutional Amendment = Law under Article 13(2).
• Parliament cannot make any law that abridges or takes away Fundamental Rights.
• Hence, any amendment that violates Fundamental Rights should be declared void.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Repeated its earlier stand: Amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
• Parliament has sovereign power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Supreme Court (6:5 majority) gave a historic ruling:
  • Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
  • Constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13(2) and hence subject to its restriction.
  • Fundamental Rights have a “transcendental position” in the Constitution.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Severely restricted Parliament’s power to make constitutional amendments.
• Created a constitutional crisis — social and land reforms were blocked.
• Led to Parliament enacting the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) to restore its amending power.
• Set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

🏛️ 4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – [13-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Does Parliament have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
Is there any limit to Parliament’s amending power under Article 368?

---

🔹 Background:

• After the Golaknath judgment (1967), Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights was blocked.
• To restore it, the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) was passed, declaring that constitutional amendments are not law under Article 13 and reaffirming Parliament’s full power to amend.
• Kesavananda Bharati, a seer from Kerala, challenged Kerala’s land reform laws and, more broadly, tested the extent of Parliament’s power under Article 368.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• Parliament’s power is not unlimited.
• The Constitution is based on certain core principles (like democracy, rule of law) that cannot be altered or destroyed.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Parliament has absolute power under Article 368 to amend any provision, including Fundamental Rights.
• There should be no restriction on the amending process as long as the procedure is followed.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Delivered by the largest bench in Indian history (13 judges).
• Verdict: 7–6 majority.

Key rulings:

1. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. BUT it cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
3. The Basic Structure Doctrine was formally established for the first time.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Introduced judicial limits on Parliament’s amending power.
• Basic Structure Doctrine became a permanent feature of Indian Constitutional law.
• Balanced the power between Parliament and Judiciary.
• This judgment is considered the guardian of the Constitution’s soul.

🏛️ 5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – [5-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can Parliament bar the judiciary from reviewing the election of the Prime Minister through a constitutional amendment?

---

🔹 Background:

• In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Indira Gandhi defeated Raj Narain in Rae Bareli.
• Raj Narain challenged her election in the Allahabad High Court, which found her guilty of electoral malpractice and invalidated her election.
• While the case was pending appeal, Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975) which:
  • Stated that the election of the Prime Minister, President, Vice President, and Speaker could not be challenged in court.
  • Transferred jurisdiction of such matters to a special body to be created by Parliament.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument (Raj Narain):

• The 39th Amendment violates the Basic Structure by:
  • Removing judicial review
  • Undermining free and fair elections
  • Destroying equality before law

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• The amendment is valid under Article 368.
• Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment (for the first time applying the Basic Structure Doctrine).
• Held that:
  • Free and fair elections are part of the Basic Structure.
  • Judicial review is essential for upholding democracy and the rule of law.
• The attempt to protect Indira Gandhi’s election was unconstitutional.

---

🔹 Impact:

• First case where a constitutional amendment was invalidated for violating the Basic Structure.
• Reinforced the authority of the Supreme Court to check political misuse of constitutional power.
• Strengthened democratic principles and judicial independence.

🏛️ 6. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – [5-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution?
Is the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles part of the Basic Structure?

---

🔹 Background:

• After the Emergency (1975–77), the Indira Gandhi government passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976).
• This amendment:
  • Gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution (via changes to Article 368).
  • Declared that DPSPs would override Fundamental Rights.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument (Minerva Mills):

• The 42nd Amendment violates the Basic Structure by:
  • Giving Parliament unchecked power.
  • Destroying the balance between FRs and DPSPs.
  • Taking away judicial review, a core feature of the Constitution.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Parliament has full amending power.
• Prioritizing Directive Principles helps achieve socio-economic justice.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Supreme Court struck down key parts of the 42nd Amendment.
• Held that:
  • Limited amending power of Parliament is part of the Basic Structure.
  • The harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential and cannot be disturbed.
  • Judicial review cannot be eliminated.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Reasserted the judiciary’s role as guardian of the Constitution.
• Prevented Parliament from becoming supreme over the Constitution.
• Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine by adding:
  • Limited amending power
  • Judicial review
  • Balance between FRs and DPSPs

🏛️ 7. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) – [5-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Do laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) enjoy protection from judicial review, even if they violate Fundamental Rights?

---

🔹 Background:

• Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule (inserted via 1st Amendment in 1951) protect certain laws from being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Post-Kesavananda (1973), many more laws were added to the Ninth Schedule to avoid judicial scrutiny.
• Petitioners argued that this blanket protection should not apply to laws that destroy the Basic Structure.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda judgment) must be tested against the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Parliament cannot use the Ninth Schedule to bypass Fundamental Rights and core constitutional values.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Laws in the Ninth Schedule are protected by Article 31B, regardless of when they were added.
• Parliament’s power to place laws in the Ninth Schedule is part of its amending power.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• The Supreme Court created a clear distinction:
  • ✅ Laws added to the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are safe.
  • ❌ Laws added after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
• Reaffirmed the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Introduced a cut-off date (24 April 1973) for Ninth Schedule protection.
• Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine by preventing its misuse via backdoor entries into the Ninth Schedule.
• Made Parliament accountable even while using its amending powers.

🏛️ 8. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – [9-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can the President’s Rule (Article 356) be imposed arbitrarily by the Union government?
Are secularism and federalism part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

---

🔹 Background:

• Several state governments were dismissed by the Union using Article 356, claiming breakdown of constitutional machinery.
• Most of these dismissals were politically motivated, not based on actual constitutional crises.
• S.R. Bommai, former CM of Karnataka, challenged the dismissal of his government, triggering a large constitutional debate.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• The use of Article 356 must be subject to judicial review.
• Secularism and federalism are core features of the Constitution and cannot be violated by political misuse of central power.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• The President’s satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is final and not justiciable.
• Parliament has the right to decide when there is a constitutional breakdown in a state.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Supreme Court gave a historic verdict:
  • President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
  • Secularism and federalism are part of the Basic Structure.
  • The Union cannot dismiss state governments based on political reasons.
  • A floor test in the Assembly is the proper way to determine majority.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Curbed the misuse of Article 356 by the central government.
• Strengthened India’s federal structure and state autonomy.
• Cemented secularism and federalism as non-negotiable Basic Structure elements.
• Reinforced the idea that constitutional morality overrides political convenience.

🏛️ 9. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – [9-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Can laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after 24 April 1973 be challenged if they violate the Basic Structure Doctrine?

---

🔹 Background:

• After the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), the Waman Rao case (1981) clarified that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 can be reviewed.
• However, there was still confusion over whether Fundamental Rights can be protected from amendments using the Ninth Schedule.
• I.R. Coelho challenged the inclusion of certain Tamil Nadu land ceiling laws in the Ninth Schedule, claiming they violated equality and judicial review.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• Ninth Schedule cannot be used as a shield to protect unconstitutional laws.
• If a law violates Fundamental Rights forming part of the Basic Structure, it must be struck down, even if in the Ninth Schedule.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Laws in the Ninth Schedule enjoy absolute protection under Article 31B.
• Parliament has amending power under Article 368 to place any law in the Ninth Schedule.

---

🔹 Judgment:

• The Supreme Court gave a landmark ruling:
  • ✅ All laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review.
  • ❌ If these laws violate Fundamental Rights that form part of the Basic Structure, they can be struck down.
  • Ninth Schedule is not above the Constitution.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine as a check on Parliament’s power.
• Made it clear that Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule are not immune from judicial scrutiny.
• Strengthened the role of the judiciary in protecting core constitutional values.

🏛️ 10. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – [9-Judge Bench]

---

🔹 Issue:
Is the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution?
Does it form part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?

---

🔹 Background:

• The case arose during challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, where citizens’ biometric and personal data was being collected.
• Earlier judgments like M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) had held that privacy is not a fundamental right.
• The matter was referred to a 9-judge bench to clarify whether privacy is protected under the Constitution.

---

🔹 Petitioner’s Argument:

• Privacy is intrinsic to human dignity, liberty, and personal autonomy.
• It flows from Articles 14, 19, and 21, and is essential for the right to life.
• Denying privacy would undermine democracy and constitutional morality.

---

🔹 Government’s Argument:

• Privacy is not an explicitly stated Fundamental Right.
• In a welfare state, the right to privacy can be reasonably restricted for public interest (e.g., Aadhaar).

---

🔹 Judgment:

• Unanimous verdict by 9 judges:
  • Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
  • It also flows from Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom).
  • Earlier rulings (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) were overruled.
  • Privacy is essential to human dignity, autonomy, and democracy.

---

🔹 Impact:

• Marked a historic expansion of Fundamental Rights.
• Strengthened Article 21 and its broad interpretation.
• Though not directly using the Basic Structure Doctrine, it upheld core constitutional values like dignity, liberty, and limited government.
• Became the basis for further challenges to Aadhaar and other surveillance-related laws.