42nd and 44th Amendments: Impact on the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution

42nd Amendment (1976)

The 42nd Amendment, often referred to as the "Mini-Constitution" due to its extensive changes, significantly impacted the Indian Constitution. Key changes included:

1. Restriction on Judicial Review:
   • Introduced Article 368(4) and (5), which barred any challenge to constitutional amendments in courts, thus attempting to make Parliament's amending power absolute.
   • Added Article 31C, which gave precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights, provided the laws were for implementing the directives specified in Articles 39(b) and (c).
2. Strengthening Central Government:
   • Altered the balance of power between the central and state governments, increasing the central government's control.
3. Inclusion of Fundamental Duties:
   • Added Part IV-A, outlining the Fundamental Duties of citizens.

44th Amendment (1978)

The 44th Amendment was enacted to undo some of the changes brought by the 42nd Amendment and to restore the balance of power:

1. Restoration of Judicial Review:
   • Repealed Article 368(4) and (5), reinstating the judiciary's power to review constitutional amendments.
   • Amended Article 31C, restricting its scope to only laws implementing the Directive Principles in Articles 39(b) and (c), thereby protecting Fundamental Rights more robustly.
2. Right to Property:
   • Removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights, making it a legal right under Article 300A.
3. Emergency Provisions:
   • Modified provisions related to the declaration of a national emergency, ensuring that such declarations require the consent of the President and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

Principles Laid Down in the Minerva Mills Case (1980)

The Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case reaffirmed and refined the basic structure doctrine. The key principles laid down include:

1. Limited Amending Power:
   • The Court reiterated that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited by the basic structure doctrine. Any amendment that violates the basic structure is unconstitutional.
2. Harmony Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
   • The Court emphasized the need for a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It held that the Constitution aims to create a harmonious blend of these principles and that one cannot override the other.
3. Invalidation of Certain Provisions of the 42nd Amendment:
   • The Court struck down Article 368(4) and (5) as these provisions were contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution.
   • It also declared the extended scope of Article 31C, which allowed any law to be protected if it was for implementing any Directive Principles, as unconstitutional.
4. Reaffirmation of Judicial Review:
   • The Court reaffirmed the importance of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution. It underscored that without judicial review, the protection of Fundamental Rights would be compromised.

Conclusion

The 42nd and 44th Amendments represent two contrasting approaches to constitutional amendments in India. The 42nd Amendment attempted to enhance the powers of Parliament at the expense of the judiciary and Fundamental Rights, while the 44th Amendment sought to restore the balance of power and reinforce the protection of Fundamental Rights.

The Minerva Mills case played a crucial role in reinforcing the basic structure doctrine and ensuring that any attempt to alter the Constitution's fundamental framework would be subject to judicial scrutiny. This case reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the necessity of maintaining a balance between the different organs of the state, thereby preserving the democratic ethos of the nation.