2.

1-Initial Modification

If one were to critically analyses the amendments to the Constitution in the light of the
theories propounded by classical western theorists it may be seen that the amendments to the
Constitution follow a chronological pattern.
The First Amendment came soon after the Constitution came into force. The interpretation of
Article 31 in certain decisions, which resulted in invalidation of certain land reform laws,
necessitated its amendment. The most important of such decisions is Kameshwar Singh V.
State of Bihar1 in which the Patna High court held the ‘Bihar Land Reform Act’, 1950 to be
invalid on the ground that the process of giving compensation was discriminatory and
violated the guarantee of equality to the citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution. It
appeared from this decision that clause 4 of Article 31 would not prevent the Zamindari
abolition laws from invalidation on grounds other than mentioned in clause 2 of that Article.
Thus, in order to protect the laws from invalidation and pave the way for agrarian reforms in
the country, Article 31A and 31B were inserted by the Constitution First Amendment Act,
1951 and was primarily aimed at Zamindars. Their effect was to remove the intermediaries
and to improve the lot of tiller of the soil, which was one of the avowed objectives of
National movement and more importantly with the objectives of social reform and removal of
inequality.
The first Amendment to the Constitution which followed certain decisions of the Supreme
Court appears to have the objective of removing the ‘economic cleavage’ that existed
between the owners of the land and the tiller. The legislature seems to have realised that there
was a need for proactive legislation so as to enable distribution of land and improve the
conditions of the economically marginalized with reference to the right to property.
The 4th Amendment widened the scope of Article 31A by including certain other categories of
legislation, which shall immune from attack on ground of their violating the provisions of
part 3.
It added four new categories of legislation which shall not be open to challenge on the
ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by
Articles 14, 19 and 31: -
1. Taking over the management of any property by state for a limited period.
2. Amalgamation of two or more corporations.
1
AIR 1962 SC 1166
3. Extinguishment or modification of rights of persons interested in corporations.
4. Extinguishment or modification of rights accruing under any agreement ,lease or license
relating to any mineral or mineral oil

The fourth amendment to the Constitution appears to be in contradiction with Bodin’s theory
of the separation of the sovereign power of the state and the ownership of property. Since the
fourth Amendment has enabled the state to not only regulate but also to take over the
management of private property and such infringement of right shall not be challenged shows
that the power of the state in the regulation of private property for the greater common good
is to a certain extent absolute. Article 31A was amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth
Amendment) Act, 1964 as there arose some doubt about the term ‘estate’ given in clause (2)
(a) of the Article. In the case of I.C. Golaknath V. State of Punjab,2 the validity of the
seventeenth amendment was challenged and the Supreme Court upheld the argument that the
power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is an ordinary legislative power and thus
an amendment being law under Article 13 of the Constitution is invalid if it abridges any of
the fundamental rights. The ruling of the Supreme Court created hurdle in the way of the
amendment of fundamental rights for saving the legislative measures aimed at the socio-
economic development of the country.
The seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution appears to be in agreement with John
Locke’s interpretation wherein the right to property is linked with the inherent rights of life
and liberty. When the legislature refers to the term ‘estate’ they appear to recognize the
ownership of property as a fundamental right that is not subject to state regulation or
intervention. The legislature here appears to have veered from its initial position of abridging
the right to property in the interest of the greater common good to protecting the interests of
the propertied classes.

2.2- From the 25th Amendment to the 44th Amendment

The Constitution (Twenty Fifth Amendment) Act, 19713, apart from amending Article 31 sub
clause (2), inserted a new Article 31C in the Constitution which provided as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the

2
AIR 1967 SC 1643
3
Upendra Baxi, “The Constitutional Quicksands of Kesavananda Bharati and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment”,
(1974) 1 SCC (Jour) 45
State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or (c) of Article 39 shall be
deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of
the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31 and no law containing a declaration that it is for
giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in the court on the ground that it does
not give effect to such policy.
This was challenged in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.4 The majority
held that the first part of section 3 of the amending Act, inserting Article 31C is valid. The
part was held to be invalid. Thus it was established that law giving effect to Article 39 (b) (c)
shall not be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with Articles 14, 19 or 31,
however any such law was held to be justiciable.

4
AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225