Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 – Landmark Cases
| Case Name | Section | Rules(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) | — | Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic structure (essential features). | This case was decided before the 42nd Amendment was passed. The dispute concerned laws affecting land reforms and Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined the limits of that power. The Court held that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic structure. Important features include constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism and the rule of law. This judgment established the principle later used to review parts of the 42nd Amendment. |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) | 4 | Section 4 expanded Article 31C to protect laws implementing any Directive Principle of State Policy from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court held this expansion unconstitutional because it damaged the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. | Minerva Mills, a textile company, challenged government action and provisions affecting its undertaking. The case also questioned parts of the 42nd Amendment. Section 4 had expanded Article 31C so that laws implementing any Directive Principle could receive protection from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court held that this change damaged the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Both parts of the Constitution are important and must work together. The Court struck down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment. The earlier, narrower protection under Article 31C remained in force. |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) | 55 | Parliament cannot make its power to amend the Constitution unlimited. The power of judicial review cannot be removed by a constitutional amendment. | Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368. Clause (4) attempted to prevent courts from questioning constitutional amendments. Clause (5) declared that Parliament had no limits on its power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held both clauses unconstitutional. The Court explained that a limited power to amend the Constitution is itself part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot use a limited power to give itself unlimited power. Judicial review is also essential because courts must be able to examine whether constitutional amendments follow the Constitution's basic limits. |
| S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) | 44 | Administrative tribunals may decide service-related disputes, but they must provide an effective system of justice. | The case concerned the validity of the administrative tribunal system established under Article 323A. Article 323A was inserted by Section 44 of the 42nd Amendment. The law allowed tribunals to decide disputes involving recruitment and conditions of service in public employment. The petitioner challenged whether the tribunal system could replace the role of High Courts. The Supreme Court accepted the tribunal system subject to safeguards that would ensure fair and effective justice. The Court treated the tribunal as an alternative to the High Court for the matters assigned to it. This approach was later reconsidered and clarified in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) | 44; 45 | Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, is part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot completely remove these powers. | The case challenged provisions concerning tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B, which were inserted by the 42nd Amendment. These provisions sought to exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary constitutional courts over matters assigned to tribunals. A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined whether this exclusion was valid. The Court held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure. Tribunals may hear cases first, but their decisions remain subject to review by the relevant High Court. The judgment limited the effect of the 42nd Amendment's attempt to exclude constitutional court review. It remains a leading case on the role of tribunals in India's justice system. |
Case Name
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Section
—
Rules(s)
Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic structure (essential features).
Case Brief
This case was decided before the 42nd Amendment was passed. The dispute concerned laws affecting land reforms and Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined the limits of that power. The Court held that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic structure. Important features include constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism and the rule of law. This judgment established the principle later used to review parts of the 42nd Amendment.
Case Name
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Section
4
Rules(s)
Section 4 expanded Article 31C to protect laws implementing any Directive Principle of State Policy from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court held this expansion unconstitutional because it damaged the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Case Brief
Minerva Mills, a textile company, challenged government action and provisions affecting its undertaking. The case also questioned parts of the 42nd Amendment. Section 4 had expanded Article 31C so that laws implementing any Directive Principle could receive protection from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court held that this change damaged the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Both parts of the Constitution are important and must work together. The Court struck down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment. The earlier, narrower protection under Article 31C remained in force.
Case Name
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Section
55
Rules(s)
Parliament cannot make its power to amend the Constitution unlimited. The power of judicial review cannot be removed by a constitutional amendment.
Case Brief
Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368. Clause (4) attempted to prevent courts from questioning constitutional amendments. Clause (5) declared that Parliament had no limits on its power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held both clauses unconstitutional. The Court explained that a limited power to amend the Constitution is itself part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot use a limited power to give itself unlimited power. Judicial review is also essential because courts must be able to examine whether constitutional amendments follow the Constitution's basic limits.
Case Name
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Section
44
Rules(s)
Administrative tribunals may decide service-related disputes, but they must provide an effective system of justice.
Case Brief
The case concerned the validity of the administrative tribunal system established under Article 323A. Article 323A was inserted by Section 44 of the 42nd Amendment. The law allowed tribunals to decide disputes involving recruitment and conditions of service in public employment. The petitioner challenged whether the tribunal system could replace the role of High Courts. The Supreme Court accepted the tribunal system subject to safeguards that would ensure fair and effective justice. The Court treated the tribunal as an alternative to the High Court for the matters assigned to it. This approach was later reconsidered and clarified in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.
Case Name
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Section
44; 45
Rules(s)
Judicial review by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and by the Supreme Court under Article 32, is part of the basic structure. Parliament cannot completely remove these powers.
Case Brief
The case challenged provisions concerning tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B, which were inserted by the 42nd Amendment. These provisions sought to exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary constitutional courts over matters assigned to tribunals. A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court examined whether this exclusion was valid. The Court held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure. Tribunals may hear cases first, but their decisions remain subject to review by the relevant High Court. The judgment limited the effect of the 42nd Amendment's attempt to exclude constitutional court review. It remains a leading case on the role of tribunals in India's justice system.