Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 – Landmark Cases

—

During the Emergency, the Supreme Court's majority held that a person could not approach a court to enforce the right to personal liberty when the relevant Presidential Order was in force. This ruling was later rejected in constitutional law.

This case arose during the National Emergency declared in 1975. Several people were detained without trial under preventive detention laws. They approached High Courts, arguing that their detention was unlawful. The Supreme Court's majority held that during the Emergency, a person could not seek judicial enforcement of the right to personal liberty under the circumstances covered by the Presidential Order. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented and argued that life and liberty could not be taken away without legal authority. The 44th Amendment later strengthened safeguards for life and personal liberty during an Emergency. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the reasoning of the majority in ADM Jabalpur.

6; 34

The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, even though it is no longer a Fundamental Right. A person cannot be deprived of property without authority of law.

The case concerned the acquisition of land under State legislation. The landowners challenged the law and argued that it violated their property rights. The Supreme Court examined Article 300A, which was inserted by the 44th Amendment after the right to property was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights. The Court held that the State can take private property only under a valid law. The law must meet constitutional requirements and cannot be arbitrary. Article 300A does not make every acquisition invalid, but it protects people against property being taken without legal authority. The judgment explains the protection that remains after the right to property ceased to be a Fundamental Right.

38

The President's Rule imposed under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. A State government cannot be dismissed merely on the Union Government's unsupported claim that constitutional machinery has failed.

Several State governments were dismissed under Article 356, leading to challenges before the courts. The Supreme Court examined the limits on the Union Government's power to impose President's Rule. It held that a proclamation under Article 356 can be reviewed by courts. The reasons for imposing President's Rule must have a proper factual basis. Where a government's majority is in doubt, the appropriate test is generally a floor test in the Legislative Assembly. The Court also recognised secularism as part of the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment is important for understanding the constitutional safeguards surrounding President's Rule, whose operation was also affected by the 44th Amendment.

4

The protection under Article 31C cannot be extended to every Directive Principle in a way that damages the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Minerva Mills challenged provisions connected with government action against its textile undertaking and the constitutional amendments affecting that action. The case examined Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, which had expanded Article 31C to protect laws implementing any Directive Principle from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. The Supreme Court struck down that expansion. It held that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must remain in balance. The Court explained that giving unlimited priority to Directive Principles would damage the Constitution's basic structure. The 44th Amendment restored the narrower protection of Article 31C for laws implementing Article 39(b) and Article 39(c). This case explains why the 44th Amendment's change to Article 31C was constitutionally important.

40

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is fundamental. The State cannot remove the protection of these rights through an Emergency order.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered whether privacy is protected by the Constitution. The Court unanimously recognised the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right linked to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and other Fundamental Rights. The judgment also rejected the reasoning of the majority in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla. The Court made clear that the earlier approach to liberty during the Emergency was wrong. The 44th Amendment protects the right to move courts to enforce Articles 20 and 21 even during a National Emergency. This case is important for understanding the constitutional protection of life, liberty and privacy.

—

Free and fair elections, equality and the rule of law are essential features of the Constitution's basic structure.

Raj Narain challenged the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. During the dispute, the 39th Amendment introduced Article 329A, which sought to place certain election disputes involving the Prime Minister and other high constitutional office-holders beyond ordinary judicial review. The Supreme Court invalidated the provision that attempted to protect the Prime Minister's election from judicial scrutiny. The Court held that Parliament cannot use a constitutional amendment to destroy the basic structure. The case was decided before the 44th Amendment, but it forms important background to the later restoration of constitutional safeguards. The 44th Amendment also removed Article 329A through its amendment of the Constitution.