Constitutional Law at India
Constitutional Law in India
The Constitution of India (1950) is the supreme law of the country. It establishes the framework for governance, fundamental rights, directive principles, separation of powers, and the relationship between the Union and States. Constitutional law in India governs:
Fundamental Rights
Articles 12–35 guarantee rights such as equality (Article 14), freedom of speech (Article 19), protection from arbitrary arrest (Article 21), and rights against discrimination (Articles 15, 16).
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
Articles 36–51 guide the State in making policies aimed at social welfare, equity, and justice.
Separation of Powers
Defines legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
Includes judicial review under Article 13 and Articles 32, 226.
Federal Structure
Division of powers between the Union and States (Seventh Schedule).
Addresses legislative competence, inter-state disputes, and emergency provisions (Articles 352–360).
Amendment Procedure
Article 368 allows Parliament to amend the Constitution while respecting the basic structure principle established by the Supreme Court.
Judicial Review
Courts have the authority to invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.
Landmark Cases in Indian Constitutional Law
Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
Challenge to the Kerala government’s land reform legislation, which curtailed property rights.
Questioned whether Parliament could amend fundamental rights.
Issue:
Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot alter its “basic structure.”
Significance:
Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
Ensures fundamental principles like democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers remain inviolable.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport under the Passport Act, 1967 without providing reasons.
Issue:
Does Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) include procedural fairness and require reasoned action by authorities?
Holding:
Supreme Court held that “life and personal liberty” include procedural due process.
Any action affecting liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”
Significance:
Expanded the scope of Article 21 beyond physical liberty.
Linked Articles 14, 19, and 21, promoting broader protection of fundamental rights.
Case 3: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts:
Challenge to Indira Gandhi’s election on grounds of electoral malpractice.
Issue:
Can constitutional amendments shield the Prime Minister from judicial review?
Holding:
Supreme Court invalidated the 39th Amendment to the Constitution that sought to protect the Prime Minister’s election.
Significance:
Reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Demonstrated limits of parliamentary amendments interfering with democratic processes.
Case 4: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
Multiple state governments dismissed under Article 356 (President’s Rule) were challenged in court.
Issue:
Can the President dissolve state governments arbitrarily?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that dismissal under Article 356 must be subject to judicial review.
Federalism and democratic mandate are part of the basic structure.
Significance:
Strengthened federalism.
Prevented misuse of Article 356 by the Union government.
Case 5: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
Slum dwellers in Mumbai challenged eviction orders by municipal authorities.
Issue:
Does the Right to Life under Article 21 include the right to livelihood?
Holding:
Supreme Court held that Article 21 includes livelihood and means of subsistence.
Significance:
Expanded Article 21 to incorporate socio-economic rights.
Laid groundwork for a broader interpretation of fundamental rights.
Case 6: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Alternate aspect – 1973)
Additional Aspect:
Clarified the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Holding:
Parliament cannot override Fundamental Rights under the guise of implementing Directive Principles.
Balance between socio-economic reforms and fundamental freedoms must be maintained.
Significance:
Protects civil liberties while allowing state intervention for welfare.
Key Takeaways from Indian Constitutional Law Cases
| Principle | Implication |
|---|---|
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Parliament cannot alter essential constitutional principles. |
| Judicial Review | Courts can invalidate laws or amendments violating the Constitution. |
| Expanded Right to Life | Includes personal liberty, livelihood, and dignity. |
| Procedural Due Process | Administrative actions affecting rights must be fair and reasonable. |
| Federalism | Union must respect state governments; misuse of Article 356 is reviewable. |
| Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles | Balance socio-economic policies with civil liberties. |
Conclusion:
Indian Constitutional Law establishes a framework of fundamental rights, judicial review, and democratic governance, with courts actively interpreting and protecting these rights. Landmark cases demonstrate:
Protection of personal liberty, livelihood, and democracy.
Limits on parliamentary and executive powers.
Judicial enforcement of constitutional balance between rights, reforms, and federalism.
RELATED Blog
comments