Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The writ, petitioner's case, in short is that the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bill") is not an ordinary amendment of the Constitution bu,t in fact is a manoeuvring for eroding into the foundation of the Constitution of Indiar by legislating about the Panchayats which form an integral part of local government and include village administration being Entry No. 5 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The petitioner's case that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor is conferred by Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution. The said amending power of Parliament in exercise of its constituent power has come up for judicial review-before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions. This Constitution Amendment as contained in the Bill seeks to interfere with the basic structure as well as the basic features of the Constitution and is against the letter and spirit of Article 40 being the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Part IV of the Constitution. The said Directive does riot confer any competence on Parlia-ment either to legislate in the field of village panchayats or to exercise its constituent power to amend the Constitution by adding thereto any provision relating to the organi-sation of village panchayats. Article 246 of the Constitution dearly makes provision at to the subject matter of laws to be mads by Parlia-merit and the Legislatures of the States. It is further contended that the different States in India have their own legislation covering the field of Panchayats, including their establishment, organisation and functioning. The Stale of West Bengal has also a comprehensive legislation and statutory, rules covering the Panchayat system which is functioning as full-fledged unit of local self government and the election of different bodies of the Panchayats are held periodically. It is further contended that the provisions of the said Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill purport to establish legislative and execultive supremacy of the Union over the States in the matter of the village Panchayats admin-stration as a whole. The proposed Articles 243B, 243E, 243J and 243M of the Bill make the legislative power of the State Legislature subordinate to the provisions of this consu-tutional amendment thereby conferring upon the Central Government and or the Central Agencies like the Comptroller & Anditor-General of India and the Election Commission to interfere with the, establishment organisation and functioning blian exclusive State subject. The Direative Principals of State Policy enshrined in the Constitution do not anywhere confer any power upon the Union Government or Parliament to legislate in the form of a constitutional amendment over an exclusive legislative field earmarked for operation by the State Legislature a lone. If such encroachments are allowed to be made by grabbing powers of the States by the Union then such amendments of the Constituton will completely destroy the essoutial, basic features and structure of the. Constitution of the country and ultimately the federal system will be turned into a unitary system of Government with the State Government serving as the Central Govenment's subordinate agencies instead' of autonomous units. This process if not checked by the Rule of Law will imbalance the constitutional framework. It is further slated in the petition that the local self-government was not even included in the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule and this goes to demonstrate the intention of the Constitution-makers. The writ petition also referred to the Preamble of the.Constitution containing the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be amended in; 'exercise of power conferred under Article 368 of the Constitution. It is further contended that List-I U nion List, List-U State List and List-111 Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule with reference to the distribution of legislative power as envisaged under Article 246 specify the different items which cannot otherwise be interfered with. It is also contended that the Bill and its numerous provisions are ultra views the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368 as thet Bill intends to completely wreck the established. Constitution as envisaged by the Constitution-makers. The Bill not only interferes with an integral part of the Union and State Relationship but also seeks to destroy the Rule of Law thereby interfering with the political justice secured to the citizens of India in the Preamble to the Constitution. The writ petitioner prays for a Rule commanding the respondents not to proceed with the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989 and or to enact the same and also for a declaration that the Bill is illegal unconstitutional arid ultra vires the basic structure and features of the Constitution, a declaration that the constituent power of the Parliament cannot be exercised to amend the Constitution in derogation to the scheme of distribution oflegislative power contained in Part 'XI of the Constitution read with the Seventh Schedule. The writ petitioner also prayed for ad interim order upon the respondents from proceeding with the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989 and for taking steps for enacting the same and from giving it effect, if enacted.

3. Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in a strenuous argument submitted that the Constitution (Sixty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989 and its professed objects and reasons tend to violate the basic structure of the Constitution of India and certain basic features thereof i.e., federalism, distribution of legislative power between the Union and the States forming essential part of the relation between the Union and the States-in the federal set-up rule of law upon which the said basic structura is founded and the guarantee of political justice to the citizens of India contained in the Preamble to the Constitution. The impugned Bill is a proposed measure to bring about certain amendments to the Constitution not only in violation of its basic, structure and features but also to overstep the limitation imposed on the constituent and or amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in its three historic judgments in the cases of His Holiness Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Wamon Rao v. Union of India .

14. The learned Counsel submitted that the/constituent process itself is subject to judicial review, although the legislative process may not be so. The pre-enactment review is justified as under : first, because the Constitution is the supreme and organic law of the land; second, because its basic structure and basic features are unamendable and indestructible; third, because it is the funda-mental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and insti-tution and to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India as enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution; fourth, because of the limitation imposed by the Supreme Court on the amending power of Parliament in exercise of its constituent power under Article 368; fifth, because the amendment-brought about may cause irreparable damage and injury to the Constitution unless the power of judicial review is exercised at the threshold itself; sixth, because it is the duty of the Courts vested with the power of judicial review to exercise vigilance over the sanctity of the Constitution with a view to protect and uphold the same; and seventh, beeause'any process to destroy or emasculate the Constitution or its basic structure and basic features is itself unconstitutional being violative of the/judicial mandate in Keshava-nanda's case and the limitations on the proqess of amendment of the Constitution imposed thereby. He further argued that the power and privileges of the members of Parliament, are not above the Constitution nor its supremacy and sancity and the same are not and cannot be claimed to be absolute. As has been held, by the Supreme Court in Kehar Singh's case , all power belongs to the people and it is entrusted by them to specified institutions and functionaries with the intention of working it out.

18. The main attack on the Bill is that it affects the federal character of the Constitution and takes away the powers of the States guaranteed by the Constitution thereby tampering with the basic structure and features of the federal Constitution by over-stepping the limitation imposed on the amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution. Article 368 relates to the constituent power given to Parliament to amend by addition, variation or repeal of any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Article. In three historic judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Article 368 of the Constitution and those decisions relate to the cases of Keshavananda Bharati (supra). Minerva Mills Ltd. . (supra) and Wamon Rao (supra). Of the three, the decision of the Special Bench of 13 Judges in Keshavananda Bharati's case is the pioneering decision on the subject. In all the three cases it has been expressly held that the Parliament while passing a Constitution Amendment Act exercising its 'constituent power'under Article 368 must not undermine the basic features of the Constitution. In the Keshavananda Bharati's case it was also held that the objective specified in the Preamble contained the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be amended in exercise of the power under Article 368. Chief Justice Sikri in his Conclusions in Part-VIII of the Keshavananda's case summarised his findings under eight heads of which (c) and (e) deserve to be quoted as the guideline for amendment of the Constitution. Clause (c) runs thus: "the expression 'amendment of this Constitution' does not enable Parliament to abrogate or take away fundamental rights or to completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution so as to destroy its identity. Within these limits Parliament can amend every article. And then Clause (e) is quoted as under : "Article 368 does not enable Parliament in its constituent capacity to delegate its function of amending the Constitution to another Legislature or to itself in its ordinary legislative capacity''. In the above background and the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid three leading cases there may be a genuine apprehension that the federal structure of the Constitution may be tampered with and the framework of the Constitution may be shaken. But I keep this issue open to be decided on merits.