Eleanor Finch
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use. The amendment also introduced a new article, 31C, which prevented citizens from challenging laws relating to the acquisition of property. The 25th Amendment was passed to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), also known as the Bank Nationalization case.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Official Name | The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 |
| Purpose | Curtail the fundamental right to property and permit the acquisition of private property by the government for public use |
| Compensation | To be determined by Parliament, not the courts |
| Article 31 | Amended to allow the government to acquire property for public use |
| Article 31C | Inserted to prevent citizens from challenging laws relating to the acquisition of property |
| Article 39(b) and (c) | Protected laws made under these articles from being challenged |
| Judicial Review | Exempted any law giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) from judicial review, even if it violated fundamental rights |
| Supreme Court Ruling | Overturned the decision in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (also known as the Bank Nationalization case) |
| Constitutional Rights | The basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated, even by a constitutional amendment |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to property
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, altered the fundamental right to property. The amendment curtailed this right and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use. It also allowed the government to determine the compensation, which would not be subject to court review.
The amendment was enacted to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970), also known as the Bank Nationalization case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property, with the amount of compensation being equivalent to the market value of the property. The Court also stated that any law seeking to acquire or requisition property for public purposes must meet the requirements of Article 19(1)(f).
The 25th Amendment sought to address the restrictions imposed on the government by the Supreme Court's ruling. It amended Article 31 of the Constitution, which previously provided that no law could provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property without fixing the amount of compensation or specifying the principles for determining it. The amendment also introduced a new Article 31C, which prevented citizens from challenging laws related to the acquisition of property.
The amendment had two main provisions: it changed the fundamental right to property, and it protected laws made under Article 39 (b) and (c) from being challenged. Legal expert V.G. Ramachandran criticised the amendment, stating that it "smacks of totalitarianism and hurry to achieve socialism instantly overnight".
The Supreme Court upheld certain sections of the 25th Amendment as valid in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in 1973. However, it declared the second part of Section 3, which prevented judicial review of laws giving effect to Directive Principles, as unconstitutional. Eventually, the 44th Amendment deleted the right to property as a fundamental right, and it became a constitutional right under Article 300A, with no mention of compensation.
FDR's Four Terms: The 22nd Amendment
You may want to see also
Acquisition of private property by the government
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, or The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, curtailed citizens' fundamental right to property. It permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, provided that the government paid compensation. The amount of compensation would be determined by Parliament, not the courts.
The amendment was passed by Parliament on 20 April 1972 to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper, or R.C. Cooper, v. Union of India (1970), popularly known as the Bank Nationalization case. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation, that is, the equivalent in money of the property compulsorily acquired.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment amended Article 31 of the Constitution, which previously provided that no law could provide for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property unless it fixed the amount of compensation or specified the principles on which it would be determined and given. The amendment also introduced a new Article 31C, which stated that any law passed to implement the objectives under Article 39(b) and (c) – Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) – could not be challenged or reviewed by the Court for violating fundamental rights.
The 25th Amendment was criticised by legal expert V.G. Ramachandran, who stated that it "smacks of totalitarianism and hurry to achieve socialism instantly overnight". In 1973, the Supreme Court upheld Section 2(a) and 2(b), and the first part of section 3 of the 25th Amendment as valid in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. However, the second part of section 3, which prevented judicial review of any law that gives effect to Directive Principles, was declared unconstitutional.
Who Can Violate the First Amendment?
You may want to see also
Compensation for property
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, also known as The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, made changes to the fundamental right to property. It allowed the government to acquire private property for public use, provided that it paid compensation. This compensation would be determined by Parliament, not the courts.
The amendment was passed in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (also known as the Bank Nationalization case). In this case, R.C. Cooper, a shareholder in one of 14 private banks nationalized by the Indira Gandhi government in 1969, challenged the legislation. He argued that it did not provide him with adequate compensation, violating his fundamental right to property under Article 31, and his freedom to carry on a business under Article 19(1)(g). The Court agreed with Cooper, leading Parliament to pass the 25th Amendment to overturn the decision.
The amendment changed Article 31 by replacing the word "compensation" with "amount", which could be a nominal sum fixed by law. This "amount" could not be challenged in court. The amendment also introduced a new article, 31C, which prevented citizens from challenging laws relating to the acquisition of property. It stated that any law passed to implement the objectives under Article 39(b) and (c) (Directive Principles of State Policy) could not be challenged or reviewed by the Court, even if it violated fundamental rights.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment curtailed the right to property and allowed the government to acquire private property for public use with compensation determined by Parliament. However, it is important to note that the 44th Amendment later deleted the right to property as a fundamental right, and it became a constitutional right under Article 300A, which does not mention compensation.
The 10th Amendment: Power and Balance in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judicial review
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1971, curtailed citizens' fundamental right to property, allowing the government to acquire private property for public use with compensation determined by Parliament, not the courts. This amendment was part of a series of measures by Indira Gandhi to increase her power and establish one-party rule.
The 25th Amendment also introduced Article 31C, stating that any law passed to implement the objectives under Article 39(b) and (c) (Directive Principles of State Policy) could not be challenged or reviewed by the Court, even if it violated Fundamental Rights. This insertion was an instance of the power struggle between the Court and Parliament regarding the constitutional meaning of and relationship between fundamental rights and DPSPs.
The 25th Amendment was passed to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), also known as the Bank Nationalization case. In this case, Rustom Cavasjee Cooper, a shareholder in one of 14 private banks nationalized by the Indira Gandhi government, challenged the legislation. He argued that it violated his fundamental right to property under Article 31 and freedom to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) by not providing adequate compensation. The Court agreed and passed a judgment striking down the relevant portion of the legislation.
The 25th Amendment sought to overturn this decision by amending Article 31 to prevent citizens from challenging laws relating to property acquisition. It specified that no law providing for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property could be questioned in court on the grounds of inadequate compensation.
Legal experts like V.G. Ramachandran criticized the 25th Amendment as a "slaughter of the Constitution," suggesting it reflected a "hurry to achieve socialism instantly overnight." The Amendment was also part of a series of constitutional amendments designed to weaken the judiciary and enhance the authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister's Office.
In 1973, the Supreme Court reviewed the 25th Amendment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a landmark case in Indian constitutional law. The Court upheld Section 2(a), 2(b), and the first part of Section 3 of the Amendment as valid. However, it declared the second part of Section 3, which prevented judicial review of laws giving effect to Directive Principles, as unconstitutional. This judgment established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, holding that certain fundamental features, such as the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by Parliament through constitutional amendments.
Term Limits: Constitutional Amendment Explained
You may want to see also
Fundamental rights
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1971, made significant changes to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. One of the key provisions of this amendment was the curtailment of the fundamental right to property, as outlined in Article 31. The amendment allowed for the government to acquire private property for public use, with compensation determined by Parliament rather than the courts. This represented a shift from previous interpretations of Article 31, which guaranteed a right to compensation equivalent to the market value of the acquired property.
The amendment also introduced a new article, Article 31C, which prevented citizens from challenging laws related to the acquisition of property. This article stated that any law passed to implement the objectives under Article 39(b) and (c), known as the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), could not be challenged or reviewed by the Court, even if it violated fundamental rights. The inclusion of Article 31C highlighted the ongoing debate between the Court and Parliament regarding the constitutional interpretation of fundamental rights and DPSPs.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment was a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, also known as the Bank Nationalization case. In this case, the Court upheld the fundamental right to property and compensation under Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f) and (g). The Court's decision restricted the government's ability to acquire property, leading Parliament to pass the 25th Amendment to overturn the ruling.
Legal experts and commentators offered differing opinions on the implications of the 25th Amendment. Some, like legal expert V.G. Ramachandran, criticised the amendment for "slaughtering" the Constitution and veering towards totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the Law Commission expressed concern over the restriction on judicial review, arguing that Parliament should trust the judiciary to perform its duty impartially.
In 1973, the Supreme Court addressed the 25th Amendment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The Court upheld certain sections of the amendment while declaring others unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court held that while Section 2(a), 2(b), and the first part of Section 3 were valid, the second part of Section 3, which prevented judicial review of laws related to Directive Principles, was deemed unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed the principle that while the Constitution could be amended, the fundamental structure and principles could not be abrogated.
The Constitution: Roe vs Wade Amendment?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, or The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, was passed by Parliament on 20 April 1972.
The Amendment curtailed the fundamental right to property, allowing the government to acquire private property for public use, with compensation set by Parliament, not the courts.
The Amendment was passed to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), also known as the bank nationalization case. The Court had ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation for the acquisition of property.
The Amendment had two main provisions. Firstly, it amended Article 31, preventing citizens from challenging laws relating to the acquisition of property. Secondly, it inserted a new Article 31C, protecting laws made under Article 39 (b) or (c) from being challenged.
Legal expert V.G. Ramachandran criticised the Amendment as a "slaughter of the Constitution" and an attempt to achieve "socialism instantly overnight". The Supreme Court also declared part of the Amendment unconstitutional in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
