Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

55. Since there was complete absence of any legal assistance on this important aspect of the controversy, I am depending upon my own study, oriented by a pragmatic and dynamic approach in contradiction to dogmatic, static and hearing "voices from graves" approach.

56. The first and foremost question is, whether the democracy in the federal Indian Constitution contemplates a democracy based on adult franchise. In Smt. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, democracy was treated as essential feature of the basic structure of our Constitution. Mathew, J., termed it as established democracy by the Constitution (Paras 3 to 9 of Indira Gandhi's case). Beg, J.. in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 (Assembly Dissln. case) called it as basic democratic norms for the use of Article 356.

58. Challenging the above, it was argued inter alia that the refusal of the Chief Ministers to give effect to the directive cannot be made a basis for the issuance of proclamation under Article 356 and that the said Article cannot be invoked for the sole purpose of dissolving the State Assemblies and holding fresh elections,

59. Beg, C. J., in his separate Judgment observed that if the basic structure embarrasses basic democratic norms, the constitutional machinery of Article 356 could conceivably be used by the Union Government for securing compliance with its view of such norms, when in its opinion, the State Government has failed to observe them. He further pointed out that if the directive principles of State policy. which embraces a vast principle of legislation for the welfare of masses of our people are also part of the basic structure which has to be ensured and maintained by the use of the constitutional machinery, the failure of the State Government or its legislature to carry out any of the constitutional mandates or directives, bv appropriate legislation may, according to possible view, be construed as a failure of its duties to carry out what the Constitution requires. At another place. Beg, C. J. pointed out that the supremacy of the Constitution was the basic structure of the Constitution.

61. These Judges said that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. "This harmony and bal ance", they said, "between the fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution."

62. In Waman Rao v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 271) (supra). Chandrachud, C.J., Krishna Iyer, Tulzapurkar and Sen, JJ. held that the Constitution 1st Amendment Act, 1951 which introduced Article 31A in the Constitution did not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Chandrachud, C.J., who delivered the majority judgment observed as under (para 29):--

"The First Amendment was thus made the Constitutional ideal oi equal iustice a living truth. It is like a mirror that reflects the ideals of the Constitution; it is not the destroyer of the basic structure. The provisions introduced by it and the 4th Amendment for the extinguishment and modification of rights in lands held or led for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, strengthen rather than weaken the basic structure of the Constitution."

63. It seems that Chandrachud, C.J. was justifying the validity of the First Amendment on the basis of "equal justice" as the basic structure of the Constitution.