Story behind Basic structure doctrine

Gol ak Nat h case (1967), wh i ch h ad h el d t h at Parl i am en t h ad n o power t o am en d f u n dam en t al ri

g h t s,
g ov ern m en t caref u l l y sel ect ed som e j u dg es wh o wou l d n ot be obst ru ct i v e t o i t s rev ersal .
Th e case becam e a con t est n ot on l y between t h e ri v al part i es bu t apparen t l y am on g som e of t
h e j u dg es wh o were com m i t t ed t o t h ei r own st ron g v i ews on Parl i am en t 's power t o am en d t h e Con
st i t u t i on
" I g ot t h e i m pressi on [f rom t h e f i rst day ] t h at m i n ds were cl osed an d v i ews were det erm i n ed."
Th e case was essen t i al l y a pol i t i cal f i g h t i n a cou rt of l aw wi t h a pol i t i cal backg rou n d.
on e
dou bt i f t h e deci si on i n t h e case was t ru l y a j u di ci al on e
Si x j u dg es
were of t h e opi n i on t h at Parl i am en t 's power was l i m i t ed becau se of i m pl i ed an d i n h eren t l i m i t at
i on s i n t h e Con st i t u t i on , i n cl u di n g t h ose i n f u n dam en t al ri g h t s.
Si x ot h er j u dg es
were of t h e opi n i on t h at t h ere were n o l i m i t at i on s at al l on Parl i am en t 's power t o am en d t h e
Con st i t u t i on . Bu t on e j u dg e Ju st i ce H.R. Kh an n a t ook n ei t h er si de. He h el d t h at Parl i am en t h
ad t h e f u l l power of am en di n g t h e Con st i t u t i on ; bu t becau se i t h ad t h e power on l y " t o am en
d," i t m u st l eav e " t h e basi c st ru ct u re or f ram ework of t h e Con st i t u t i on " i n t act .
It was a h opel essl y di v i ded v erdi ct
How was i t t h en sai d t h at t h e Cou rt by a m aj ori t y h el d t h at Parl i am en t h ad n o power t o am en d t h e
basi c st ru ct u re of t h e Con st i t u t i on ?
Im m edi at el y af t er t h e el ev en j u dg es f i n i sh ed readi n g t h ei r j u dg m en t s, Ch i ef Ju st i ce Si kri , i n
wh ose opi n i on Parl i am en t 's power was l i m i t ed by i n h eren t an d i m pl i ed l i m i t at i on s, passed on a h
ast i l y prepared paper cal l ed a " Vi ew of t h e Maj ori t y " f or si g n at u res by t h e t h i rt een j u dg es on t
h e ben ch . On e of t h e con cl u si on s i n t h e " Vi ew of t h e Maj ori t y " was t h at " Parl i am en t di d n ot
h av e t h e power t o am en d t h e basi c st ru ct u re or f ram ework of t h e Con st i t u t i on ."
Ni n e j u dg es si g n ed t h e st at em en t i n cou rt . Fou r ot h ers ref u sed t o si g n i t .
By an y readi n g of t h e el ev en j u dg m en t s, t h i s con cl u si on cou l d n ot h av e been t h e v i ew of t
h e m aj ori t y .
Som e j u dg es h ad n o t i m e t o read al l t h e el ev en j u dg m en t s as t h ey were prepared u n der g reat
con st rai n t s of t i m e owi n g t o t h e ret i rem en t of t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce t h e n ex t day .
No con f eren ce was cal l ed of al l j u dg es f or f i n di n g ou t t h e m aj ori t y v i ew.
Th e on e con f eren ce cal l ed by t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce ex cl u ded t h ose j u dg es wh o were of t h e opi n i on
t h at t h ere were n o l i m i t at i on s on t h e am en di n g powers. Nor was t h e con cl u si on debat ed i n cou
rt , as i t ou g h t t o h av e been . Th e Ch i ef Ju st i ce's act i on h as been descri bed by som e as an act of st at
esm an sh i p. Ot h ers bel i ev e i t was a m an oeu v re t o creat e a m aj ori t y t h at di d n ot ex i st .
by an ou t rag eou s abu se of t h e am en di n g power du ri n g t h e Em erg en cy , Parl i am en t m ade t h e 39t
h Am en dm en t t o t h e Con st i t u t i on . Th i s i n t rodu ced Art i cl e 329 A of t h e Con st i t u t i on wh i ch
sou g h t t o v al i dat e In di ra Gan dh i 's el ect i on set asi de by a j u dg e of t h e Al l ah abad Hi g h Cou rt wi t h
ou t an y con t est , i n cl u di n g h er pen di n g appeal i n t h e Su prem e Cou rt .
Th e g ov ern m en t bel i ev ed t h at wi t h t h e am en dm en t t o Art i cl e 329A of t h e Con st i t u t i on , h er
appeal wou l d si m pl y be al l owed. Bu t so ou t rag eou s was t h e am en dm en t t h at al l f i v e j u dg es
decl ared i t bad as i t v i ol at ed " t h e basi c st ru ct u re." Nev ert h el ess, In di ra Gan dh i 's appeal was al l
owed by an am en dm en t m ade t o t h e Represen t at i on of t h e Peopl e Act , 1951, wh i ch cu red al l i l l eg al i
t i es i n h er el ect i on . Th e cou rt cou l d st ri ke down con st i t u t i on al l aw bu t n ot an ordi n ary l aw t h
at carri ed ou t t h e sam e pu rpose. To m an y t h i s seem ed perpl ex i n g .
Ev ery on e t ook i t t h at t h e cou rt h ad n ow approv ed t h e basi c st ru ct u re t h eory by st ri ki n g down
t h e am en dm en t t o Art i cl e 329A ev ery on e, t h at i s, ex cept Ch i ef Ju st i ce A.N. Ra
two day s af t er t h e In di ra Gan dh i case was deci ded, t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce con st i t u t ed a n ew ben ch of
t h i rt een j u dg es t o rev i ew t h e Kesav an an da Bh arat i case.
For two day s, N.A. Pal kh i v al a m ade t h e m ost el oqu en t an d passi on at e arg u m en t ag ai n st t h e rev i ew.
On Nov em ber 12, t h e t h i rd day , t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce an n ou n ced su dden l y at t h e v ery ou t set of h
eari n g : " Th e ben ch i s di ssol v ed.
Ch i ef Ju st i ce Ray 's m al adroi t at t em pt t o rev i ew t h e basi c st ru ct u re l i m i t at i on g av e i t a l eg i t i m
acy t h at n o su bsequ en t af f i rm at i on of i t cou l d h av e g i v en .
Ju st i ce Bh ag wat i sai d t h at t h e st at em en t si g n ed by n i n e j u dg es h ad n o l eg al ef f ect at al l an d cou
l d n ot be reg arded as t h e l aw decl ared by t h e Su prem e Cou rt . He sai d t h e so- cal l ed m aj ori t y v i
ew was an u n u su al ex erci se t h at cou l d n ot h av e been don e by j u dg es wh o h ad ceased t o h av e an y
f u n ct i on af t er del i v eri n g t h ei r j u dg m en t s an d wh o h ad n o t i m e t o read t h e j u dg m en t s.
Bu t i n In di ra Gan dh i 's el ect i on case two y ears l at er, Ju st i ce Kh an n a " cl ari f i ed" h i s j u dg m en t i
n t h e Kesav an an da case. He n ow sai d t h at h e h ad g i v en cl ear i n di cat i on s i n h i s j u dg m en t t h
at f u n dam en t al ri g h t s were part of t h e basi c st ru ct u re.
Wi t h t h at du bi ou s ex erci se, Ju st i ce Kh an n a's " cl ari f i cat i on " i s n ow a v i t al part of t h e basi c st ru
ct u re. Fu n dam en t al ri g h t s are n ow i m m u n e t o an am en dm en t i f i t v i ol at es t h e basi c st ru ct u re
of t h e Con st i t u t i on .
In t h e l at est j u dg m en t , del i v ered on Jan u ary 11, 2007, by n i n e j u dg es of t h e Cou rt on t h e Ni n t h Sch
edu l e t o t h e Con st i t u t i on , t h e basi c st ru ct u re l i m i t at i on h as been st at ed t o be " an ax i om of ou r
con st i t u t i on al l aw." An ax i om m ean s a sel f - ev i den t t ru t h . So be i t . Wh at ev er i t s ori g i n s, t h e basi c
st ru ct u re t h eory pl ay s a u sef u l part i n ou r con st i t u t i on al j u ri spru den ce. Parl i am en t does n ot an d
sh ou l d n ot h av e an u n l i m i t ed power t o am en d t h e Con st i t u t i on . Howev er, i n t h e g l ori f i cat i on of t
h e basi c st ru ct u re t h eory , i t i s i m port an t t o bear i n m i n d i t s i n f i rm root s an d h ow predi l ect i on s
an d prej u di ces of j u dg es, ch an ce, an d acci den t al ci rcu m st an ces h av e pl ay ed a g reat er part rat h er
t h an an y l og i c or con sci ou s f orm u l at i on of i t .
Gol ak Nat h case (1967), wh i ch h ad h el d t h at Parl i am en t h ad n o power t o am en d f u n dam en t al ri
g h t s, g ov ern m en t caref u l l y sel ect ed som e j u dg es wh o wou l d n ot be obst ru ct i v e t o i t s rev ersal .
Th e case becam e a con t est n ot on l y between t h e ri v al part i es bu t apparen t l y am on g som e of t
h e j u dg es wh o were com m i t t ed t o t h ei r own st ron g v i ews on Parl i am en t 's power t o am en d t h e Con
st i t u t i on " I g ot t h e i m pressi on [f rom t h e f i rst day ] t h at m i n ds were cl osed an d v i ews were det erm i n
ed." Th e case was essen t i al l y a pol i t i cal f i g h t i n a cou rt of l aw wi t h a pol i t i cal backg rou n d. on e
dou bt i f t h e deci si on i n t h e case was t ru l y a j u di ci al on e Si x j u dg es were of t h e opi n i on t h at Parl
i am en t 's power was l i m i t ed becau se of i m pl i ed an d i n h eren t l i m i t at i on s i n t h e Con st i t u t i on , i n
cl u di n g t h ose i n f u n dam en t al ri g h t s. Si x ot h er j u dg es were of t h e opi n i on t h at t h ere were n o l
i m i t at i on s at al l on Parl i am en t 's power t o am en d t h e Con st i t u t i on . Bu t on e j u dg e Ju st i ce H.R.
Kh an n a t ook n ei t h er si de. He h el d t h at Parl i am en t h ad t h e f u l l power of am en di n g t h e Con st i t
u t i on ; bu t becau se i t h ad t h e power on l y " t o am en d," i t m u st l eav e " t h e basi c st ru ct u re or f
ram ework of t h e Con st i t u t i on " i n t act . It was a h opel essl y di v i ded v erdi ct How was i t t h en sai d t
h at t h e Cou rt by a m aj ori t y h el d t h at Parl i am en t h ad n o power t o am en d t h e basi c st ru ct u re of t h e
Con st i t u t i on ? Im m edi at el y af t er t h e el ev en j u dg es f i n i sh ed readi n g t h ei r j u dg m en t s, Ch i ef Ju
st i ce Si kri , i n wh ose opi n i on Parl i am en t 's power was l i m i t ed by i n h eren t an d i m pl i ed l i m i t at i on
s, passed on a h ast i l y prepared paper cal l ed a " Vi ew of t h e Maj ori t y " f or si g n at u res by t h e t h i rt
een j u dg es on t h e ben ch . On e of t h e con cl u si on s i n t h e " Vi ew of t h e Maj ori t y " was t h at "
Parl i am en t di d n ot h av e t h e power t o am en d t h e basi c st ru ct u re or f ram ework of t h e Con st i t u
t i on ." Ni n e j u dg es si g n ed t h e st at em en t i n cou rt . Fou r ot h ers ref u sed t o si g n i t . By an y readi n g of
t h e el ev en j u dg m en t s, t h i s con cl u si on cou l d n ot h av e been t h e v i ew of t h e m aj ori t y . Som e
j u dg es h ad n o t i m e t o read al l t h e el ev en j u dg m en t s as t h ey were prepared u n der g reat con st
rai n t s of t i m e owi n g t o t h e ret i rem en t of t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce t h e n ex t day . No con f eren ce was
cal l ed of al l j u dg es f or f i n di n g ou t t h e m aj ori t y v i ew. Th e on e con f eren ce cal l ed by t h e Ch i ef
Ju st i ce ex cl u ded t h ose j u dg es wh o were of t h e opi n i on t h at t h ere were n o l i m i t at i on s on t h e
am en di n g powers. Nor was t h e con cl u si on debat ed i n cou rt , as i t ou g h t t o h av e been . Th e Ch i ef
Ju st i ce's act i on h as been descri bed by som e as an act of st at esm an sh i p. Ot h ers bel i ev e i t was a m an
oeu v re t o creat e a m aj ori t y t h at di d n ot ex i st . by an ou t rag eou s abu se of t h e am en di n g power du ri
n g t h e Em erg en cy , Parl i am en t m ade t h e 39t h Am en dm en t t o t h e Con st i t u t i on . Th i s i n t rodu ced
Art i cl e 329 A of t h e Con st i t u t i on wh i ch sou g h t t o v al i dat e In di ra Gan dh i 's el ect i on set asi de
by a j u dg e of t h e Al l ah abad Hi g h Cou rt wi t h ou t an y con t est , i n cl u di n g h er pen di n g appeal i n t h e
Su prem e Cou rt . Th e g ov ern m en t bel i ev ed t h at wi t h t h e am en dm en t t o Art i cl e 329A of t h e Con
st i t u t i on , h er appeal wou l d si m pl y be al l owed. Bu t so ou t rag eou s was t h e am en dm en t t h at al l
f i v e j u dg es decl ared i t bad as i t v i ol at ed " t h e basi c st ru ct u re." Nev ert h el ess, In di ra Gan dh i 's
appeal was al l owed by an am en dm en t m ade t o t h e Represen t at i on of t h e Peopl e Act , 1951, wh i ch cu
red al l i l l eg al i t i es i n h er el ect i on . Th e cou rt cou l d st ri ke down con st i t u t i on al l aw bu t n ot an
ordi n ary l aw t h at carri ed ou t t h e sam e pu rpose. To m an y t h i s seem ed perpl ex i n g . Ev ery on e t ook
i t t h at t h e cou rt h ad n ow approv ed t h e basi c st ru ct u re t h eory by st ri ki n g down t h e am en dm
en t t o Art i cl e 329A ev ery on e, t h at i s, ex cept Ch i ef Ju st i ce A.N. Ra two day s af t er t h e In di ra Gan
dh i case was deci ded, t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce con st i t u t ed a n ew ben ch of t h i rt een j u dg es t o rev i ew t
h e Kesav an an da Bh arat i case. For two day s, N.A. Pal kh i v al a m ade t h e m ost el oqu en t an d passi on at e arg
u m en t ag ai n st t h e rev i ew. On Nov em ber 12, t h e t h i rd day , t h e Ch i ef Ju st i ce an n ou n ced su dden l y
at t h e v ery ou t set of h eari n g : " Th e ben ch i s di ssol v ed. Ch i ef Ju st i ce Ray 's m al adroi t at t em pt
t o rev i ew t h e basi c st ru ct u re l i m i t at i on g av e i t a l eg i t i m acy t h at n o su bsequ en t af f i rm at i on of i t
cou l d h av e g i v en . Ju st i ce Bh ag wat i sai d t h at t h e st at em en t si g n ed by n i n e j u dg es h ad n o l eg al ef
f ect at al l an d cou l d n ot be reg arded as t h e l aw decl ared by t h e Su prem e Cou rt . He sai d t h e so-
cal l ed m aj ori t y v i ew was an u n u su al ex erci se t h at cou l d n ot h av e been don e by j u dg es wh o h ad
ceased t o h av e an y f u n ct i on af t er del i v eri n g t h ei r j u dg m en t s an d wh o h ad n o t i m e t o read t h e
j u dg m en t s. Bu t i n In di ra Gan dh i 's el ect i on case two y ears l at er, Ju st i ce Kh an n a " cl ari f i ed" h i s j
u dg m en t i n t h e Kesav an an da case. He n ow sai d t h at h e h ad g i v en cl ear i n di cat i on s i n h i s j u
dg m en t t h at f u n dam en t al ri g h t s were part of t h e basi c st ru ct u re. Wi t h t h at du bi ou s ex erci se,
Ju st i ce Kh an n a's " cl ari f i cat i on " i s n ow a v i t al part of t h e basi c st ru ct u re. Fu n dam en t al ri g h t s
are n ow i m m u n e t o an am en dm en t i f i t v i ol at es t h e basi c st ru ct u re of t h e Con st i t u t i on . In t h e l
at est j u dg m en t , del i v ered on Jan u ary 11, 2007, by n i n e j u dg es of t h e Cou rt on t h e Ni n t h Sch edu l e t
o t h e Con st i t u t i on , t h e basi c st ru ct u re l i m i t at i on h as been st at ed t o be " an ax i om of ou r con st i t u
t i on al l aw." An ax i om m ean s a sel f - ev i den t t ru t h . So be i t . Wh at ev er i t s ori g i n s, t h e basi c st ru ct u
re t h eory pl ay s a u sef u l part i n ou r con st i t u t i on al j u ri spru den ce. Parl i am en t does n ot an d sh ou l d n
ot h av e an u n l i m i t ed power t o am en d t h e Con st i t u t i on . Howev er, i n t h e g l ori f i cat i on of t h e basi c
st ru ct u re t h eory , i t i s i m port an t t o bear i n m i n d i t s i n f i rm root s an d h ow predi l ect i on s an d prej u
di ces of j u dg es, ch an ce, an d acci den t al ci rcu m st an ces h av e pl ay ed a g reat er part rat h er t h an an y
l og i c or con sci ou s f orm u l at i on of i t .
Article 368 of the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and encompass all
parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative enthusiasm of Parliament ever
since independence. With the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned by the constitution-makers, the
apex court pronounced that Parliament could not distort, damage or alter the basic features of the Constitution under
the pretext of amending it.
The pre-Kesavanadaposition
several laws were enacted in the states with the aim of reforming land ownership and tenancy structures.
implementing the socialistic goals of the Constitution [contained in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of
State Policy] that required equitable distribution of resources of production among all citizens and prevention of
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Property owners -- adversely affected by these laws -- petitioned the
courts. The courts struck down the land reforms laws saying that they transgressed the fundamental rightto property
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Parliamentplaced these laws in the Ninth Scheduleof 2 the Constitution through the First and Fourth amendments
(1951 and 1952 respectively), thereby effectively removing them from the scope of judicial review.
[Parliament added the Ninth Scheduleto the Constitution through the very first amendment in 1951 as a means of
immunising certain laws against judicial review. Under the provisions of Article 31, which themselves were amended
several times later, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule -- pertaining to acquisition of private property and compensation
payable for such acquisition -- cannot be challenged in a court of law on the ground that theyviolated the fundamental
rights of citizens. This protective umbrella covers more than 250 laws passed by state legislatures with the aim of
regulating the size of land holdings and abolishing various tenancy systems. The Ninth Schedulewas created with the
primary objective of preventing the judiciary - which upheld the citizens' right to property on several occasions - from
derailing the Congressparty led government's agenda for a social revolution. 3 ]
Property owners again challenged
saying that they violated Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Article 13 (2)provides for the protection of the fundamental
rights of the citizen. 4
Theyargued that any amendment to the Constitution had the status of a law as understood by Article 13 (2).
the Supreme Court rejected both arguments and upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution
including that which affects the fundamental rights of citizens.
The Golaknathverdict
Supreme Court reversed its position.
Chief Justice Subba Raoput forth the curious position that Article 368, that contained provisions related to the
amendment of the Constitution, merely laid down the amending procedure. Article 368 did not confer upon Parliament
the power to amend the Constitution. The amending power (constituent power) of Parliament arose from other
provisions contained in the Constitution (Articles 245, 246, 248) which gave it the power to make laws (plenary
legislative power).Thus, the apex court held that the amending power and legislative powers of Parliament were
essentially the same. Therefore, any amendment of the Constitution must be deemed law as understood in Article 13
(2).
The majority judgement invoked the concept of implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
This view held that the Constitution gives a place of permanence to the fundamental freedoms of the citizen.
The judges stated that the fundamental rights were so sacrosanct and transcendental in importance that they could not
be restricted even if such a move were to receive unanimous approval of both houses of Parliament.
They observed that a Constituent Assembly might be summoned by Parliament for the purpose of amending the
fundamental rights if necessary.
In other words, the apex court held that some features of the Constitution lay at its core and required much more than
the usual procedures to change them. The phrase 'basic structure'was introduced for the first time by M.K. Nambiar and
other counsels while arguing for the petitioners in the Golaknath case,
Nationalisation of Banks and Abolition of Privy Purses
But the opportunity to test parliamentary supremacy presented itself once again when Parliamentintroduced laws to
provide greater access to bank credit for the agricultural sector and ensureequitable distribution of wealth and
resources of production and by: a) nationalising banks and b) derecognising erstwhile princes in a bid to takeaway
their Privy purses, which were promised in perpetuity - as a sop to accede to the Union - at the time of India's
independence.
Parliament reasoned that it was implementing the Directive Principles of State Policybut the Supreme Court struck
down both moves. By now, it was clear that the Supreme Court and Parliament were at loggerheads over the relative
position of the fundamental rightsvis--vis the Directive Principles of State Policy. At one level, the battle was about the
supremacy of Parliament vis--vis the power of the courts to interpret and uphold the Constitution. At another level
the contention was over the sanctity of property as a fundamental right jealously guarded by an affluent class much
smaller than thatof the large impoverished masses for whose benefit the Congress government claimed to implement
its socialist development programme.
in a quick move to secure the mandate ofthe people and to bolster her own stature Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
dissolved the Lok Sabha and called a snap poll.
For the first time, the Constitution itself became the electoral issue in India.
The electorate had endorsed the Congress party's socialist agenda, which among other things spoke of making basic
changes to the Constitution in order to restore Parliament's supremacy.
It restored for itself the absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution including Part III, dealing with
fundamental rights. 9 Even the President was made duty bound to give his assent to any amendment bill passed by both
houses of Parliament. Several curbs on the right propertywere passed into law. The right to equality before the law and
equal protection of the laws (Article 14) and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 10 were made
subordinate to Article 39 (b) & (c) in the Directive Principles of State Policy. 11 Privy purses of erstwhile princes were
abolished and an entire category of legislation dealing with land reforms was placed in the Ninth Schedulebeyond the
scope of judicial review.
All judges upheld the validity of the Twenty-fourthamendment saying that Parliament had the power to amend any or
all provisions of the Constitution.All signatories to the summary held that the Golaknathcase had been decided wrongly
and that Article 368 contained both the power and the procedure for amending the Constitution. However they were
clear that an amendment to the Constitution was not the same as a law as understood by Article 13 (2). [It is necessary
to point out the subtle difference that exists betweentwo kinds of functions performed by the Indian Parliament: a) it
can make laws for the country by exercising its legislative power 15 and b) it can amend the Constitution by exercising
its constituent power.
Constituent power is superior to ordinary legislative power.
Unlike ordinary laws, amendments to constitutional provisions requirea special majority vote in Parliament.
Another illustration is useful to demonstrate the difference between Parliament's constituent power and law making
powers. According to Article 21of the Constitution, no person in the country may be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.
including Chief Justice Sikriwho signed the summary statement, declared that Parliament's constituent power was
subject to inherent limitations. Parliament could not use its amending powers under Article 368to 'damage',
'emasculate', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or framework of the Constitution.
Basic Structure concept reaffirmed- the Indira Gandhi Election case
Meanwhile, Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth amendment to the Constitution which removed the authority of the
Supreme Court toadjudicate petitions regarding elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker
of the Lok Sabha. Instead, a body constituted by Parliament would be vested with the power to resolve such election
disputes. Section 4 of the Amendment Bill effectively thwarted any attempt to challenge the election of an incumbent,
occupying any of the above offices in a court of law.
Amendments were also made to the Representation of Peoples Actsof 1951 and 1974 and placed in the Ninth
Schedulealong with the Election Laws Amendment Act, 1975 in order to save the Prime Minister from embarassment if
the apex court delivered an unfavourable verdict. The mala fide intention of the government was proved by the haste in
which the Thirty-ninth amendment was passed.