Constitutional Challenges
Constitutional Challenges in India
A constitutional challenge arises when an individual, group, or institution questions the validity of a law or governmental action on the grounds that it violates the Constitution of India. These challenges are mainly of two types:
Challenge to legislative action – questioning whether a law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature violates the Constitution.
Challenge to executive action – questioning whether actions by government authorities (rules, notifications, or policies) are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of India has the authority to review laws under Article 13 and Article 32, while High Courts exercise similar powers under Article 226.
Key Landmark Cases
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on property rights under land reform laws. He argued that it violated his fundamental rights.
Issue: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down the “Basic Structure Doctrine”, ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure (e.g., democracy, secularism, separation of powers).
Significance: This case is the cornerstone of constitutional challenges, as it set limits on the power of constitutional amendments.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without a proper reason.
Issue: Does Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) permit arbitrary restriction without "due process"?
Judgment: The Court expanded Article 21, stating that any law depriving life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, linking Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom), and 21.
Significance: Strengthened judicial review and set the stage for challenging arbitrary executive actions.
3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts: The election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was challenged for alleged electoral malpractice.
Issue: Could the Parliament pass a law to protect the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny?
Judgment: The Court ruled that constitutional amendments cannot destroy the basic structure, reinforcing Kesavananda Bharati. The amendment shielding her election was invalid.
Significance: Demonstrated judicial supremacy in reviewing both executive and legislative actions.
4. SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: Governors dismissed several state governments under Article 356 (President’s rule), allegedly for political reasons.
Issue: Can the central government arbitrarily dismiss state governments?
Judgment: The Court ruled that Article 356 cannot be used for political purposes and must be subject to judicial review.
Significance: Strengthened federalism and the limitation on executive powers; a prime example of constitutional challenge against executive action.
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: Parliament had passed amendments that gave itself unlimited power, potentially nullifying judicial review and Fundamental Rights.
Issue: Could Parliament remove judicial review and override fundamental rights?
Judgment: The Court struck down the amendments that violated the basic structure, reinforcing judicial review and the balance of power.
Significance: Reaffirmed that constitutional amendments cannot destroy the Constitution’s essential features.
6. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Facts: Challenge to whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (to protect them from judicial review) were immune from scrutiny.
Issue: Can Parliament shield laws from being challenged for violating fundamental rights?
Judgment: Any law added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 is subject to judicial review if it violates the basic structure.
Significance: Strengthened the principle that no law can be above the Constitution.
7. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Facts: Challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, criminalizing consensual same-sex relations.
Issue: Does Section 377 violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21?
Judgment: The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, ruling it violated equality, dignity, and privacy.
Significance: Modern example of constitutional challenge protecting personal liberty and equality.
Summary of Principles in Constitutional Challenges
Judicial Review: Courts can strike down laws violating the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Some features of the Constitution cannot be altered.
Fundamental Rights Protection: Laws or actions violating fundamental rights are unconstitutional.
Checks on Legislative and Executive: Both Parliament and the executive are subject to judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
comments