N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India (1974) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes

1. What is the N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India Case all about?

The N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India case in 1974 is a landmark judgement that addressed the issue of the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. The case examined whether the 25th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which introduced significant changes to property rights and curbed judicial review, was constitutionally valid.

2. Facts of the N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India Case Relevant for UPSC

1. Parties Involved:

• N. A. Palkhivala (petitioner, a renowned jurist and constitutional expert)
• Union of India (respondent)

1. Legal Questions:

• Whether Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution in a way that affects fundamental rights.
• Whether the 25th Amendment, which introduced changes to Article 31C and limited judicial review, was constitutionally valid.

1. Noteworthy Events:

• The 25th Amendment to the Constitution of India was enacted in 1971, which sought to curb the power of judicial review and protect laws related to the implementation of Directive Principles from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
• N. A. Palkhivala challenged the amendment, arguing that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India Case?

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement that upheld the basic structure doctrine:

1. The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but this power is not absolute and is subject to the basic structure doctrine.
2. It ruled that the 25th Amendment, which amended Article 31C, was partially valid. The amendment was upheld to the extent that it protected laws implementing certain Directive Principles from being challenged for violating Articles 14 and 19. However, the part that excluded judicial review was struck down as unconstitutional.
3. The judgement reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), stating that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments.

4. What was the Impact of N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India Case on Indian Constitution?

1. Reinforcement of Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgement reinforced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament.
2. Protection of Judicial Review: It upheld the importance of judicial review as an essential part of the basic structure, protecting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights.
3. Limitation on Parliamentary Power: The ruling limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, ensuring that amendments do not violate the core principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

5. Was this N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?

The principles established in the N. A. Palkhivala vs. Union of India case have not been reversed and continue to guide the interpretation of constitutional amendments in India. The judgement remains a significant reference for ensuring that the basic structure of the Constitution is preserved.

6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The case reaffirmed the principle that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments, ensuring the preservation of fundamental constitutional principles.
2. Protection of Judicial Review: The judgement emphasized the importance of judicial review as an integral part of the basic structure, protecting the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights.
3. Limitation on Amending Power: The ruling established that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the limitations imposed by the basic structure doctrine.