Page 42 - Constitution

70 Years of Indian Years of Indian

Constitution
Constitution

emphasized that Right to privacy is intrinsic part of Article Article 14 of the Constitution mean
21. The journey of the highest judiciary from A.K Gopalan

to K.S.Puttaswamy passing through Maneka Gandhi, that equals should not be treated
unequally and that there should
Bandhu Muktha Morcha, M.C.Mehta, Godavarman, Olga
Tellis, Unnikrishnan, Aruna Shanbagh are self-explanatory be no discrimination
emphasizing that every person has the right to enjoy life
to its fullest extent. The pioneering and creativity of the
concerned. Till recently, it was the consistent view that a
Judges resulted in aforesaid landmark judgments which
legislation passed by a competent legislature cannot be
have contributed for ushering in a welfare state.
struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. Such
Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins on the State not to
a course falls foul on the accepted principle that a court
deny equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
cannot question the wisdom of the legislature.
Initially it was interpreted to mean that equals should
One of the most important judgments delivered by
not be treated unequally and that there should be no
the Supreme Court of India is the one in the case of
discrimination and that any classification should not only
Keshavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973 (4) SCC
be reasonable but also have nexus to the object sought
225). The Court in this case dealt with the power of the
to be achieved.
Parliament to amend the provisions in the Constitution.
However, later on the Supreme Court introduced a
Article 368 confers such power of amendment on the
dynamic concept of equality and held that Article embodies
Parliament without placing any restriction on such power.
principles of non-arbitrariness. Non-arbitrariness is
However, a 'Full Bench' of 13 Judges of the Supreme Court
necessary concomitant of rule of law. It affords protection
by majority of 7:6 overruling the judgment in Golaknath’s
against arbitrariness in State action. It was reiterated
case (AIR 1967 SC 1643)held that “Article 368 does not
that non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding
enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework
omnipresence.
of the Constitution”. For the first time, the Supreme Court
In large number of cases the Supreme Court has
evolved this new doctrine of basic structure and curtailed
affirmed this ratio and whenever State action either
the authority of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
legislative or executive was questioned, the test of
The new principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is
arbitrariness was applied to strike down the impugned
now well known as the ‘doctrine of basic structure’.
action. Thus, manifest arbitrariness was accepted as
There were some adverse comments and criticisms
a valid ground to annul any subordinate legislation or
of the judgment on some legal and technical grounds.
executive action. However, the position is quite different
However, they were overshadowed by the fact that
so far as plenary legislation passed by legislature is

42 70 Years of Indian Constitution