Tag: Directive Principles

Communal Violence refers to violent conflicts between different religious, ethnic, or cultural groups within a society, often driven by deep-rooted prejudices, historical grievances, and political agendas. It is characterized by the eruption of violence that can include riots, massacres, and other forms of civil unrest, primarily fueled by religious or communal identities. In many cases, communal violence in India and other countries has been triggered by socio-political issues, religious extremism, and competition for resources or political power.

Factors Leading to Communal Violence

The roots of communal violence are multifaceted, with socio-economic, political, and historical factors playing a significant role in their manifestation. Some key factors that contribute to communal violence:

• Religious and Cultural Differences:

In multi-religious societies like India, religious identities often define individual and community affiliations. When one group feels marginalized or threatened by the presence or actions of another, it can result in heightened tensions and conflict. These tensions can be exacerbated by the political and social climate.

• Political Opportunism:

Politicians, especially during election times, may stoke communal tensions for electoral gain. By targeting certain communities and using hate speech, they can galvanize voters along religious or ethnic lines, which often leads to violence. Political parties may exploit existing divisions for their benefit, exacerbating communal friction.

• Historical Grievances and Mistrust:

Long-standing historical conflicts between different communities can fuel mistrust and animosity. In India, for instance, the historical division between Hindus and Muslims, particularly during the Partition of India in 1947, left deep scars that continue to surface in times of unrest. Such historical wounds often serve as a backdrop for communal clashes.

• Socio-Economic Factors:

Economic disparities between different communities can also contribute to communal tensions. Poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment disproportionately affecting certain groups may create feelings of resentment, making those communities more susceptible to divisive political rhetoric and manipulation.

• Religious Extremism:

The rise of religious extremism and fundamentalism, often propagated by radical religious leaders or groups, plays a significant role in the escalation of communal violence. Such ideologies advocate for intolerance toward other religious or ethnic groups and can incite acts of violence.

• Miscommunication and Rumors:

In many cases, communal violence is sparked by rumors and misinformation, particularly in the age of social media. False allegations or inflammatory posts can spread quickly, inflaming emotions and leading to violent actions. Often, rumors are used by certain groups to manipulate public sentiment and escalate tensions.

Consequences of Communal Violence

The consequences of communal violence are profound and can lead to significant social, political, and economic consequences:

• Loss of Lives and Property:

The immediate impact of communal violence is the loss of lives, destruction of property, and the displacement of people. In large-scale riots, such as the 2002 Gujarat riots, thousands of lives were lost, and entire neighborhoods were devastated, leaving a lasting impact on the affected communities.

• Displacement and Refugees:

Communal violence often forces people to flee their homes, resulting in displacement. Refugee-like conditions are created when entire communities are forced to seek shelter elsewhere due to fear for their safety. This creates long-term humanitarian crises and can fuel further resentment and mistrust.

• Erosion of Social Cohesion:

Communal violence erodes the social fabric of a country, fostering an environment of fear, distrust, and division. It breaks down relationships between communities that had previously coexisted peacefully and harms interfaith or intercultural dialogue.

• Undermining Democracy and Rule of Law:

In a democracy, communal violence undermines the rule of law, as law enforcement agencies may be unable or unwilling to take action. This leads to a breakdown of public trust in institutions, as people begin to feel that their safety and rights are not protected. When political leaders turn a blind eye to such violence, it weakens democratic principles.

• Long-Term Psychological Impact:

The psychological toll of communal violence is often ignored but is significant. Survivors, particularly children, carry trauma from witnessing violence, which can manifest in fear, anxiety, depression, and intergenerational hostility. Such long-lasting effects hamper the process of reconciliation and healing.

• Economic Impact:

Communities affected by communal violence suffer economic setbacks due to property destruction, loss of livelihood, and disrupted businesses. Additionally, the cost of rebuilding and providing humanitarian assistance diverts resources from development projects.

Notable Instances of Communal Violence in India

India, with its diverse population, has witnessed numerous instances of communal violence. Some of the most significant and tragic events include:

• The Partition Riots (1947):

The partition of India into India and Pakistan was accompanied by widespread communal violence between Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. The mass migration and violent clashes during this period resulted in the loss of millions of lives and the displacement of millions more.

• The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots:

After the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, violence erupted across India, particularly in Delhi. Sikhs were targeted, and thousands were killed in one of the most gruesome instances of communal violence in recent history.

• Muzaffarnagar Riots (2013):

This incident in Uttar Pradesh involved clashes between Jats and Muslims, fueled by rumors and misinformation. The violence resulted in the deaths of dozens, with thousands of people displaced.

• Delhi Riots (2020):

The violence that occurred during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Delhi led to widespread riots, with both Hindus and Muslims suffering casualties and injuries. The violence was deeply polarizing and contributed to further animosity between communities.

Government Response and Legal Framework

• Preventive Measures:

Laws like Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes acts that promote hatred between communities, are aimed at preventing communal violence. The government often deploys the army or paramilitary forces in areas prone to such violence.

• National Integration:

Efforts have been made to foster national integration through education, media, and awareness programs that promote secularism, tolerance, and harmony between communities.

• Judicial Intervention:

The judiciary in India has played a significant role in holding perpetrators of communal violence accountable. However, the slow pace of justice and the failure to bring many influential figures to trial have undermined public trust in the system.

Hate speech refers to any form of communication that incites violence, discrimination, or hatred against individuals or groups based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or other protected characteristics. When politicians engage in hate speech, it becomes particularly dangerous because their words can shape public opinion, influence political discourse, and contribute to social and political polarization. The prevalence of hate speech by politicians is a growing concern in democracies worldwide, including India, where it has the potential to undermine social harmony and democratic values.

Forms of Hate Speech by Politicians

Hate speech by politicians can take many forms, ranging from explicit calls for violence or discrimination to more subtle forms of incitement. Some of the most common forms include:

• Religious Hate Speech:

Politicians may make inflammatory comments against particular religious communities, accusing them of being threats to national security or social order. Such speech often leads to religious polarization, contributing to community tensions and violence.

• Communal or Caste-Based Hate Speech:

In India, caste-based politics is prevalent, and politicians sometimes resort to hate speech by targeting particular caste groups. This can stoke animosities between communities and contribute to caste-based violence.

• Racial or Ethnic Hate Speech:

Politicians may use racial or ethnic slurs or stereotypes to create divisions between different ethnic groups, often exploiting existing tensions for political gain.

• Gender-Based Hate Speech:

In some cases, politicians make derogatory remarks about women or LGBTQ+ communities, perpetuating discrimination and reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

• Xenophobic or Nationalist Hate Speech:

Politicians may target immigrants or minorities, using rhetoric that portrays them as undesirable or a threat to national identity. This can lead to xenophobic sentiment and violent discrimination.

• Incitement to Violence:

The most dangerous form of hate speech involves politicians using their platform to encourage violence against individuals or groups. They may call for “retaliatory actions,” “punishments,” or “extermination” of perceived enemies, fostering an atmosphere of hostility and conflict.

Political Implications of Hate Speech:

The role of politicians in spreading hate speech is particularly problematic because their influence extends beyond the public sphere, affecting policy decisions, election outcomes, and social behavior. Some of the main political implications include:

• Polarization and Divisiveness: Hate speech by politicians often serves to divide society along religious, ethnic, or ideological lines. It can lead to the creation of “us versus them” narratives, fostering hostility between different groups. This reduces the possibility of constructive dialogue and compromises the ability of a society to function cohesively.
• Voter Manipulation:

Politicians often use hate speech to appeal to specific voting blocks by tapping into existing prejudices, fears, or insecurities. This tactic is especially prevalent during election campaigns, where politicians seek to polarize the electorate in their favor. By stoking fear and anger, politicians can mobilize voters who might otherwise be indifferent.

• Destabilization of Democracy:

Hate speech threatens the democratic fabric of a nation. It undermines the principles of tolerance, respect for diversity, and the right to peaceful coexistence. In extreme cases, it can destabilize the political environment, leading to unrest, violence, and even the erosion of democratic institutions.

• Undermining the Rule of Law:

When politicians use hate speech without facing consequences, it sends a message that such actions are tolerated or even encouraged. This undermines the rule of law and weakens the mechanisms that protect individuals from discrimination, violence, and hatred.

• International Consequences:

In an interconnected world, hate speech by politicians can have international repercussions. It can damage a country’s reputation abroad, especially if it fosters violence or discrimination against specific communities. Countries may face diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or criticism from global human rights organizations.

Legal Framework to Address Hate Speech:

India has several laws to address hate speech, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of the People Act, but these laws have often been criticized for their vague definitions and inconsistent enforcement. Key provisions:

1. Section 153A of the IPC: This section criminalizes speech that promotes hatred, enmity, or ill-will between different religious or ethnic communities.
2. Section 295A of the IPC: This law targets deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, commonly invoked when religious hate speech is involved.
3. Representation of the People Act, 1951: This act prohibits candidates from making hate speeches during elections, specifically if such speech could lead to the promotion of enmity between different groups.
4. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR): The commission often steps in if hate speech targets vulnerable groups, particularly children, and uses various tools to address such issues.

While these laws exist, their effectiveness is often limited by loopholes, the absence of clear guidelines, and the failure to enforce them consistently. Politicians, especially those in power, can sometimes evade legal action due to political influence or the courts’ slow judicial processes.

Challenges in Regulating Hate Speech:

• Freedom of Expression:

One of the most significant challenges in regulating hate speech is the balance between protecting freedom of speech and preventing harm. In democratic nations like India, free speech is a fundamental right. However, when that speech incites violence or hatred, it conflicts with public safety and the rights of others.

• Political Will:

Politicians themselves are often the perpetrators or enablers of hate speech, which complicates efforts to hold them accountable. It is not uncommon for politicians to escape punishment due to the lack of political will to enforce the law.

• Media Amplification:

The media often plays a role in amplifying hate speech, especially on television, social media, and other platforms. Politicians’ remarks can be widely disseminated, further escalating tensions and spreading hate.

• Social Media:

In the digital age, politicians often use social media to spread hate speech more efficiently, reaching millions of people with a single tweet or post. The challenge lies in regulating such speech without infringing upon the right to free expression.

The Way Forward

Combating hate speech by politicians requires a multi-pronged approach:

1. Stronger Legal Framework: India needs clearer and more effective laws to prevent hate speech, particularly by public figures, and ensure swift action against violators.
2. Political Accountability: Politicians must be held accountable for their words and actions. Political parties should enforce internal codes of conduct that explicitly prohibit hate speech.
3. Civic Awareness: Public awareness campaigns are essential in educating citizens about the dangers of hate speech and the importance of tolerance and respect for diversity.

4. Social Media Regulation: Given the pervasive role of social media, platforms must take greater responsibility in monitoring and removing hate speech content. Governments must collaborate with tech companies to ensure more effective regulation.

Corruption is one of the most persistent challenges that India faces in its journey toward socio-economic progress. Despite being one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, corruption has impeded the effective utilization of resources, the implementation of government policies, and the equitable distribution of wealth. It is deeply embedded in various facets of governance, business, and society, leading to inefficiencies, social inequality, and widespread public dissatisfaction.

Forms of Corruption in India:

Corruption in India manifests in various forms, affecting both public and private sectors.

• Bribery:

The most widespread form of corruption, bribery involves offering or accepting money or gifts in exchange for favors or to bypass legal procedures.

• Nepotism and Favoritism:

Public officials often give undue advantages to friends, family members, or associates, undermining meritocracy in the allocation of jobs, promotions, or public contracts.

• Embezzlement:

Misappropriation of public funds or assets by government officials for personal gain.

• Cronyism:

A situation where businesses or individuals with close ties to politicians or government officials receive contracts, licenses, or favors, irrespective of merit.

• Vote-Buying:

In some cases, political parties or candidates offer financial incentives or gifts to voters to gain votes, undermining the principle of free and fair elections.

• Rent-Seeking:

Individuals or businesses engage in rent-seeking behavior, where they manipulate the system for economic gain, often by exploiting public resources or influencing policy decisions.

Causes of Corruption in India:

The roots of corruption in India can be traced to a variety of factors, both historical and contemporary:

• Historical Legacy:

During the colonial period, the British government created a hierarchical system that concentrated power in the hands of a few. This system perpetuated practices of corruption, which continued post-independence.

• Weak Institutions:

Inadequate and underfunded institutions, coupled with weak enforcement mechanisms, fail to deter corrupt practices. While India has stringent anti-corruption laws, their implementation remains inconsistent.

• Bureaucratic Inefficiency:

Red tape, excessive paperwork, and the slow pace of governance create opportunities for corruption. Bureaucrats, who control essential services, may demand bribes to expedite processes.

• Politician-Bureaucrat Nexus:

Corruption thrives in environments where politicians and bureaucrats collaborate for mutual gain. Politicians may offer bureaucrats lucrative post-retirement positions in return for favorable decisions or contracts.

• Economic Inequality:

India’s wide wealth gap often forces the poor to engage in bribery or corruption to gain access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and government schemes.

• Lack of Transparency:

Public decision-making is often opaque, making it easier for corrupt practices to take place unnoticed. Citizens find it difficult to hold officials accountable due to a lack of access to information.

Impact of Corruption on India:

• Economic Growth:

Corruption discourages foreign investments and impedes fair competition, ultimately slowing down the economic progress of the country. Resources that could be used for development are siphoned off, leading to inefficiency and misallocation of funds.

• Widening Inequality:

Corruption deepens social inequality as it restricts access to resources and opportunities for the poor and marginalized. Instead of distributing welfare benefits to those in need, the funds are diverted for personal gain, exacerbating poverty.

• Erosion of Trust:

Public trust in institutions, particularly government bodies, is eroded when people believe that corruption is rampant. This undermines democratic processes and leads to public apathy and disenchantment with the political system.

• Weakening Rule of Law:

The normalization of corruption weakens the rule of law, as individuals with influence can bypass laws, creating a sense of impunity. This hampers justice and equal protection under the law.

• Political Instability:

The relationship between corrupt practices and political instability is significant. Corruption often fuels political unrest and public protests, as citizens demand accountability from leaders who misuse power.

Anti-Corruption Measures in India:

• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

This is the primary law aimed at punishing government employees who are involved in corruption. It criminalizes the acceptance of bribes by public servants and provides for penalties.

• Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005:

This act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in government functioning.

• Lokpal and Lokayuktas:

The Lokpal is an anti-corruption ombudsman at the national level, while Lokayuktas function at the state level. These bodies are tasked with investigating complaints of corruption against public officials.

• E-Governance Initiatives:

The digitization of government services has aimed to reduce corruption by eliminating intermediaries, streamlining processes, and increasing transparency.

• Judicial Interventions:

The judiciary has played a pivotal role in cracking down on corruption by prosecuting corrupt officials and politicians. Public interest litigation (PIL) has been used as a tool to challenge corruption.

Challenges and the Way Forward:

Despite the legal framework, corruption remains pervasive due to deep-rooted societal norms and ineffective implementation of laws. Some of the challenges include:

• Political Will:

Without strong political will, anti-corruption laws cannot be effectively enforced. Political leaders may often shield their allies from prosecution.

• Public Awareness:

Many citizens are unaware of their rights and often engage in corrupt practices themselves due to societal pressure or lack of access to basic services.

• Systemic Reform:

Corruption is often embedded in the bureaucracy and political systems, which requires long-term structural changes to eliminate.

The case of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India is considered one of the most significant constitutional law judgments in India. Delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on March 11, 1994, it clarified the scope and limits of the President’s power to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment laid down landmark principles regarding the federal structure, democratic governance, and judicial review in India.

Background of the Case:

The case arose from the political developments in Karnataka, where S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government, faced allegations of losing majority support in the legislative assembly. In April 1989, the Governor of Karnataka recommended to the President of India that the government could no longer function in accordance with the Constitution and suggested the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. Consequently, the President issued a proclamation, dismissing the Bommai government and imposing President’s Rule.

S.R. Bommai challenged the imposition of President’s Rule in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court upheld the proclamation, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Similar appeals were also pending in relation to the dismissal of governments in states such as Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Madhya Pradesh. Given the constitutional importance, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the case.

Issues Before the Court

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Scope and extent of Article 356: Under what circumstances can the President invoke Article 356 to impose President’s Rule in a state?
2. Judicial Review: Whether the President’s satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
3. Federalism and Democracy: How does the imposition of President’s Rule affect federalism and democracy in India?

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The key principles laid down by the Court are as follows:

1. Scope of Article 356

• Article 356 can only be invoked when there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
• The President cannot dismiss a state government arbitrarily or on political grounds.
• Before recommending President’s Rule, the Governor must objectively assess the situation and provide clear, cogent, and material evidence to support the claim of a constitutional breakdown.

2. Judicial Review of the Proclamation

• The Court held that the President’s satisfaction is not beyond judicial scrutiny. Courts have the power to examine whether the President acted on valid grounds or whether the action was mala fide or politically motivated.
• If the proclamation is found to be unconstitutional or mala fide, the Court can strike it down and restore the dismissed government.

3. Floor Test as a Constitutional Requirement

• The Court emphasized that the appropriate method to determine the majority in a legislative assembly is through a floor test, where the Chief Minister proves his or her majority on the floor of the house.
• The Governor should not bypass the legislature by directly recommending President’s Rule unless there is no possibility of a floor test.

4. Nature of Federalism in India

• The judgment reiterated that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the central government cannot encroach upon the autonomy of state governments unless there is a genuine constitutional breakdown.
• Although India has a quasi-federal structure, with a strong center and weaker states, the autonomy of states must be respected.

5. Temporary Nature of President’s Rule

• President’s Rule is inherently temporary and cannot be continued indefinitely.
• The President’s proclamation must be placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval, ensuring parliamentary oversight.

Significance of the Judgment

The S.R. Bommai judgment has had a far-reaching impact on Indian constitutional law and governance. Its significance can be highlighted in the following ways:

• Strengthened Federalism:

By ensuring that arbitrary dismissals of state governments are subject to judicial review, the judgment bolstered the federal structure of India. It prevented the misuse of Article 356, which had become frequent during the 1970s and 1980s.

• Democratic Governance:

The Court underscored that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. Arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule undermines the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. The emphasis on a floor test ensured that only the legislature, not the Governor, could decide the fate of an elected government.

• Judicial Activism:

The case demonstrated judicial activism in protecting constitutional values. By allowing judicial review of the President’s satisfaction, the Court ensured accountability in the exercise of executive power.

• Limits on Governor’s Powers:

The judgment clarified that the Governor’s role is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles. The Governor cannot act as an agent of the central government to destabilize a state government.

The Nabam Rebia case, formally known as Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Others (2016), is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India concerning the constitutional interpretation of the powers of a Speaker of a Legislative Assembly during the process of disqualification of members under the Anti-Defection Law. This judgment has significant implications for parliamentary democracy, especially in the context of the stability of state governments.

Background of the Case:

In December 2015, a political crisis erupted in Arunachal Pradesh. At that time, the Congress party was in power under Chief Minister Nabam Tuki, and Nabam Rebia was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. A group of Congress MLAs, along with the opposition BJP, rebelled against the government, alleging misgovernance. These rebel MLAs sought to remove the Speaker, Nabam Rebia, and bring down the government.

The Deputy Speaker of the Assembly responded to a notice by these MLAs to convene a session of the Assembly. He claimed authority to act in place of the Speaker, invoking Article 179(c) of the Constitution, which allows for the removal of a Speaker. During the session, the Deputy Speaker conducted a vote in which the Speaker was “removed” and a resolution was passed against the Chief Minister.

Nabam Rebia approached the Guwahati High Court, challenging the Deputy Speaker’s actions. The High Court upheld the actions of the Deputy Speaker, prompting Rebia to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Speaker can disqualify MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law (10th Schedule) while a motion for his own removal is pending.
2. Whether the Deputy Speaker had the authority to conduct proceedings to remove the Speaker in the absence of the Speaker.
3. Whether the Governor’s actions in advancing the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister were constitutionally valid.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

• Bias of the Speaker:

The petitioners contended that allowing the Speaker to disqualify MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law when a motion for his removal was pending would lead to a conflict of interest. Since the Speaker’s impartiality could be compromised, it would be unfair to let him preside over disqualification proceedings during such a time.

• Governor’s Overreach:

It was argued that the Governor had acted unconstitutionally by advancing the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister. According to Article 163, the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations.

• illegal Removal Process:

The petitioners claimed that the Deputy Speaker had no authority to preside over the session to remove the Speaker, as Article 179(c) specifies that the Assembly itself must remove the Speaker through a legitimate process.

Arguments by the Respondents

• Validity of the Deputy Speaker’s Actions:

The respondents argued that since the Speaker could not preside over proceedings relating to his own removal, the Deputy Speaker was empowered to act on behalf of the Assembly under Article 180.

• Speaker’s Disqualification Powers:

The respondents maintained that the Speaker had the exclusive authority to disqualify members under the 10th Schedule, and his powers could not be curtailed by a pending motion for removal.

• Governor’s Discretion:

It was contended that the Governor, under Article 174, has the discretion to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the Assembly. The advancing of the Assembly session was justified in the interest of preventing a constitutional crisis.

Judgment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on July 13, 2016, ruled in favor of Nabam Rebia and set aside the decisions of the Deputy Speaker and the Governor. The key findings of the judgment were:

• Speaker’s Powers during Pending Motion for Removal:

The Court held that when a motion for removal of the Speaker is pending, the Speaker cannot exercise powers under the 10th Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). This is because allowing the Speaker to disqualify members while facing removal creates a conflict of interest and undermines the principles of natural justice.

• Governor’s Actions Unconstitutional:

The Court ruled that the Governor’s decision to advance the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister was unconstitutional. The Governor’s role is largely ceremonial, and he must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in such matters.

• Restoration of Status Quo:

The Court restored the status quo as it existed before the Governor’s actions, effectively reinstating Nabam Tuki as Chief Minister and Nabam Rebia as Speaker. It underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures and maintaining the balance of power between the Governor, the Legislature, and the Executive.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy:

The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the Speaker must act impartially and cannot misuse his powers during politically sensitive situations. It also protected the democratic process by ensuring that the Governor does not overreach his constitutional role.

• Clarification on Governor’s Powers:

By ruling that the Governor cannot act without the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Court reinforced the idea that the Governor’s discretion is limited.

• Impact on Future Political Crises:

The judgment set a precedent for handling political crises involving the disqualification of members and the removal of Speakers. It emphasized the need for fairness and impartiality in such processes to protect the stability of governments.

The case of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, popularly known as the Sabarimala Temple case, is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2018. This case involved a contentious issue regarding the entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple, a prominent pilgrimage site in Kerala dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, who is considered to be a celibate deity. The judgment is significant for its implications on gender equality, religious freedom, and the interpretation of constitutional rights.

Background of the Case:

The Sabarimala Temple, managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, had long prohibited women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years) from entering the temple. This practice was defended by temple authorities on the grounds that Lord Ayyappa is a celibate deity, and allowing women of reproductive age to enter the temple would violate the deity’s celibacy and sanctity.

In 1991, the Kerala High Court upheld this practice, ruling that the restriction was in accordance with tradition and did not violate constitutional rights. However, in 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging this ban, arguing that it was discriminatory and violated women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether the exclusion of women from the Sabarimala Temple on the basis of age violated their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15).
2. Whether the practice was protected under Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
3. Whether the restriction was essential to the practice of the religion and thus fell under the protection of ‘essential religious practices’.
4. Whether the Sabarimala Temple could be considered a public place of worship where all individuals had equal access under Article 25(2)(b).

Arguments by the Petitioners:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
   The petitioners contended that the ban on women violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), as it discriminated against women solely on the basis of biological factors, such as menstruation. They argued that such exclusion was an affront to women’s dignity and autonomy, violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
2. Non-essential Religious Practice:
   It was argued that the exclusion of women from the temple was not an essential practice of the Hindu religion. The concept of Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy could not be used to justify gender discrimination, especially when it infringed upon constitutional rights.
3. Article 17 – Untouchability:
   The petitioners also invoked Article 17, which prohibits untouchability, arguing that the exclusion of menstruating women from the temple amounted to a form of ‘untouchability’ based on gender and biological characteristics.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• Freedom of Religion under Article 25:

The respondents contended that the Sabarimala Temple followed a unique tradition dedicated to a celibate deity, and the exclusion of women was an essential religious practice protected under Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion.

• Custom and Tradition:

They argued that the practice was rooted in centuries-old customs and traditions, which had been followed by devotees for generations. They claimed that interfering with these customs would infringe upon the religious rights of the devotees.

• Autonomy of Religious Denominations:

It was also argued that the temple was managed by a religious denomination, and under Article 26, it had the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

Judgment by the Supreme Court

On September 28, 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, delivered a 4:1 majority verdict, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The key highlights of the judgment were:

• Article 14 and Gender Equality:

The Court held that the practice of excluding women based on biological factors was discriminatory and violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, or Place of Birth).

• Non-essential Religious Practice:

The Court ruled that the exclusion of women did not constitute an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25, and therefore, it was not entitled to constitutional protection. Essential religious practices are those without which a religion would lose its fundamental character, and the Court found that the ban on women did not meet this criterion.

• Right to Worship:

The Court observed that the right to worship is guaranteed to every individual under Article 25(1), and the exclusion of women violated this fundamental right. The temple, being a public place of worship, could not discriminate against women in matters of entry.

• Secularism and Constitutional Morality:

The judgment emphasized the principle of constitutional morality, stating that individual rights and gender equality must prevail over archaic religious customs. The Court underscored the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, where all practices must align with constitutional values.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting judge, opined that issues of religious practices should not be adjudicated by courts. She held that matters of faith are beyond the scope of judicial review and that constitutional morality cannot override religious beliefs. She argued that the exclusion of women was based on a long-standing custom integral to the temple’s character and should be respected.

Significance of the Judgment

• Advancement of Gender Equality:

The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for women’s rights and gender equality. It underscored that discriminatory practices, even if rooted in religion, cannot be allowed to override fundamental rights.

• Debate on Religious Freedom:

The case sparked a nationwide debate on the balance between religious freedom and constitutional principles. It highlighted the tension between personal faith and constitutional mandates.

• Push for Uniform Civil Code:

The judgment renewed discussions on the need for a Uniform Civil Code to ensure gender justice and equality across different religious communities.

Aftermath and Developments

Following the judgment, there was widespread protest by devotees and religious groups, particularly in Kerala, who opposed the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple. Several petitions were filed seeking a review of the judgment, and in 2019, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.

The Shah Bano case, formally known as Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum and Others, is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1985. It is one of the most significant cases in Indian legal history because it raised crucial questions about women’s rights, maintenance laws, and the relationship between personal laws and the Indian Constitution. The case highlighted the conflict between religious practices and secular principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Background of the Case:

Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was married to Mohd. Ahmed Khan, a wealthy advocate in Indore, for 43 years. The couple had five children. In 1975, Ahmed Khan divorced Shah Bano by pronouncing triple talaq and denied her financial support. Shah Bano, who was left without any means of subsistence, approached the court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.

Section 125 of the CrPC is a secular provision that allows any person, irrespective of religion, to claim maintenance from their spouse if they are unable to maintain themselves. Shah Bano contended that despite being divorced, she was entitled to maintenance because her husband had sufficient means to provide for her, and her financial condition was precarious.

Legal Issues

• Applicability of Section 125 of CrPC to Muslims:

The primary legal issue was whether Section 125 of the CrPC, which is a secular law, could be applied to Muslim women, given that Muslims are governed by personal law in matters of marriage and divorce.

• Extent of Maintenance under Muslim Law:

Under Muslim personal law, a divorced woman is entitled to maintenance only during the iddat period (a period of approximately three months following the divorce). The question was whether Shah Bano could claim maintenance beyond this period under Section 125 of the CrPC.

• Supremacy of Constitutional Principles:

The case also raised the broader issue of whether religious personal laws could override the secular principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shah Bano)

• Right to Maintenance under CrPC:

Shah Bano argued that Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all citizens of India, regardless of their religion, and thus she was entitled to maintenance from her husband even after the iddat period.

• Constitutional Rights:

She contended that denying her maintenance violated her Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ahmed Khan)

• Primacy of Muslim Personal Law:

Ahmed Khan argued that since the couple were Muslims, their case should be governed by Muslim personal law, which limits a husband’s liability for maintenance to the iddat period. He contended that applying Section 125 of the CrPC would interfere with their religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

• Religious Freedom:

It was also argued that forcing a Muslim husband to provide maintenance beyond the iddat period would infringe upon his religious rights.

Judgment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, ruled in favor of Shah Bano and upheld her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.

• Secular Nature of Section 125:

The Court held that Section 125 is a secular provision aimed at preventing vagrancy and ensuring that no person is left destitute, regardless of their religion. Hence, it applies to all citizens of India, including Muslims.

• No Conflict with Personal Law:

The Court noted that providing maintenance under Section 125 does not interfere with the personal law of Muslims. The provision ensures social welfare and justice, which are also integral to Islamic teachings.

• Interpretation of Muslim Law:

The Court observed that under Islamic principles, a husband has a moral and legal duty to provide for his divorced wife if she is unable to maintain herself. Thus, there was no contradiction in applying Section 125 to Muslims.

• Supremacy of Constitutional Principles:

The judgment emphasized that constitutional principles of equality and justice take precedence over personal laws. It affirmed that personal laws must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution.

Significance of the Judgment

• Women’s Rights:

The Shah Bano judgment was hailed as a progressive step toward ensuring gender justice in India. It reinforced the idea that divorced women, irrespective of their religion, have the right to maintenance if they are unable to support themselves.

• Secularism and Uniformity:

The judgment underscored the importance of a uniform application of secular laws like Section 125 of the CrPC, highlighting that personal laws cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

• Public and Political Reaction:

The judgment sparked a nationwide debate on the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). While many hailed it as a victory for women’s rights, some sections of the Muslim community perceived it as an infringement on their religious laws. This led to political mobilization and demands for reversing the judgment.

Aftermath: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

In response to the backlash from sections of the Muslim community, the government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. This law limited a Muslim husband’s liability to provide maintenance only during the iddat period, effectively nullifying the Shah Bano judgment. The Act was widely criticized for being regressive and undermining the rights of Muslim women.

The case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, reinforcing the “Basic Structure Doctrine” established in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973). This case primarily dealt with the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The judgment is significant for preserving the sanctity of the Constitution by ensuring that amendments do not destroy its core principles.

Background of the Case:

Minerva Mills, a textile mill in Karnataka, was nationalized by the government under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974. The owners of the mill challenged the nationalization, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Freedom). While the nationalization was pending in court, Parliament passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which expanded Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368.

The 42nd Amendment made two crucial changes:

1. Clause (4) of Article 368 stated that any amendment made by Parliament could not be questioned in any court.
2. Clause (5) of Article 368 declared that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited and included the power to alter or repeal any provision, including Fundamental Rights.

These amendments raised serious concerns about the potential for abuse of power by Parliament and the erosion of judicial review.

Key Issues Raised

1. Can Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution be absolute and unlimited?
2. Is judicial review an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure?
3. Can Directive Principles of State Policy have precedence over Fundamental Rights?

Arguments by the Petitioners

• Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The petitioners argued that nationalizing the mill deprived them of their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19, which guaranteed equality and the right to carry on business.

• Limited Power of Parliament:

It was contended that the 42nd Amendment, particularly clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, granted unchecked power to Parliament, thereby undermining the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Judicial Review:

The petitioners emphasized that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution. Without it, the legislature could amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, with impunity.

Arguments by the Respondents (Union of India)

• Supremacy of Parliament:

The Union of India argued that Parliament, as the representative of the people, must have the ultimate authority to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

• Primacy of Directive Principles:

It was contended that Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, should take precedence over Fundamental Rights to ensure socio-economic justice.

• Validity of 42nd Amendment:

The respondents defended the validity of the 42nd Amendment, stating that it was necessary to empower Parliament to implement progressive legislation without interference from the judiciary.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 31, 1980, by a 4:1 majority. The key highlights of the judgment are:

• Doctrine of Basic Structure Reaffirmed:

The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine propounded in the Keshavananda Bharati case. It held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a way that damages or destroys its basic structure.

• Striking Down Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368:

The Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, declaring them unconstitutional. It ruled that these clauses violated the basic structure of the Constitution by curtailing judicial review and granting unlimited amending power to Parliament.

• Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

The Court maintained that while Directive Principles are essential for achieving socio-economic justice, they cannot override Fundamental Rights. A harmonious balance must be maintained between the two to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.

• Judicial Review as Part of Basic Structure:

The judgment held that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure. It ensures that no law or constitutional amendment enacted by Parliament violates the essential features of the Constitution.

Significance of the Judgment

• Limitation on Parliamentary Power:

The judgment reinforced that Parliament cannot have unlimited power to amend the Constitution. Amendments that alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution are invalid.

• Judicial Review Strengthened:

By striking down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, the judgment strengthened the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. Judicial review acts as a check on the legislature’s power, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution.

• Preservation of Fundamental Rights:

The judgment ensured that Fundamental Rights cannot be subordinated to Directive Principles. Both must be interpreted in a manner that preserves the dignity of individuals while promoting socio-economic welfare.

• Protection Against Authoritarianism:

The ruling safeguarded the democratic framework of the country by preventing the concentration of power in Parliament. It upheld the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary remains an independent check on the legislature.

Criticism and Aftermath

The judgment was praised for preserving constitutional supremacy and preventing the erosion of individual rights. However, some critics argued that it limited Parliament’s ability to implement socio-economic reforms aimed at reducing inequality.

In subsequent cases, such as Waman Rao vs Union of India (1981) and S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the basic structure doctrine was further upheld, cementing its place in Indian constitutional law.

The case of Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala is a landmark judgment in the history of Indian constitutional law. It introduced the doctrine of “Basic Structure” of the Constitution, limiting the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. This case is significant because it upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and established that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament.

Background of the Case:

The dispute arose when Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s move to impose land reforms under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which restricted the Mutt’s right to manage its property. He contended that the law violated his Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.

During the pendency of the case, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which sought to expand its power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. These amendments raised crucial questions about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Key Issues Raised

1. Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
3. Is there any limitation on the power of amendment by Parliament, even if Article 368 grants it broad powers?
4. Does the judiciary have the authority to review and strike down constitutional amendments?

Arguments by the Petitioners

• Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The petitioners argued that the land reforms imposed by the Kerala government violated their Fundamental Rights, specifically the right to property.

• Limited Power of Amendment:

It was contended that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not absolute. Fundamental Rights form an integral part of the Constitution and cannot be amended in a way that destroys their essence.

• Judicial Review of Amendments:

The petitioners emphasized that the judiciary has the power to review amendments made by Parliament to ensure that they do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Respondents (State and Union of India)

• Unlimited Power to Amend:

The State and Union of India argued that under Article 368, Parliament has the absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

• Supremacy of Legislature:

It was contended that since Parliament represents the will of the people, it should have the unrestricted authority to make changes in the Constitution for socio-economic reforms.

• No Limitation on Amendment:

The respondents claimed that Article 368 does not place any express limitation on Parliament’s power of amendment. Therefore, any amendment passed under this provision is valid and binding.

Judgment

The case was heard by a 13-judge bench, the largest ever in the history of the Indian judiciary. The judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973, with a 7:6 majority. The key points of the judgment are as follows:

1. Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution: The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, this power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
2. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The judgment introduced the doctrine of “Basic Structure”, stating that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be amended or destroyed. These include:
   • Supremacy of the Constitution
   • Rule of law
   • Separation of powers
   • Federal character of the Constitution
   • Secularism
   • Sovereignty and democracy
3. Judicial Review of Amendments: The Court reaffirmed that the judiciary has the authority to review amendments made by Parliament. If an amendment violates the basic structure of the Constitution, it can be declared invalid.

4. Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments:

   • The 24th Amendment, which gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, was upheld.
   • The 25th Amendment, which curtailed the right to property and inserted Article 31C, was partially upheld. The Court held that laws implementing the Directive Principles could not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
   • The 29th Amendment, which placed certain Kerala land reform laws under the Ninth Schedule, was upheld as valid.

Significance of the Judgment

• Limitation on Parliament’s Power:

The judgment curtailed the amending power of Parliament by introducing the basic structure doctrine. This ensures that Parliament cannot destroy or alter the core principles of the Constitution, preserving its identity.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights:

While Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, it cannot abrogate or destroy them in a way that violates the basic structure. This protects the essential rights of individuals from arbitrary changes by the legislature.

• Strengthened Judicial Supremacy:

The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. It established that the judiciary has the final say in determining the validity of constitutional amendments.

Criticism and Aftermath

The judgment was criticized by some as an overreach of judicial power. However, it was widely lauded for preserving the sanctity of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure was subsequently applied in several important cases, such as:

• Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980): It reaffirmed that Parliament’s power of amendment is subject to the basic structure doctrine.
• Waman Rao vs Union of India (1981): It clarified that amendments made before the Keshavananda Bharati case cannot be challenged on the ground of violating the basic structure.

The case of I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643) is one of the most significant landmark judgments in the history of Indian constitutional law. It dealt with the question of whether the Parliament had the power to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. This case is pivotal as it established the principle that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that infringes upon the Fundamental Rights.

Background of the Case:

The dispute arose from the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which included certain laws under the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, thereby insulating them from judicial review. Golak Nath, the petitioner, was a member of a family whose property was affected by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Act aimed to redistribute land and place ceilings on land holdings, which was seen as an infringement on the rights of landowners.

Golak Nath challenged the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, arguing that the amendment violated his Fundamental Rights under Article 19, which guarantees protection to certain rights like the right to property. The main issue in the case was whether Parliament could amend the Constitution to take away Fundamental Rights, particularly those under Article 19.

Legal Issues:

The core question before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament had the power to amend Part III of the Constitution, specifically the Fundamental Rights, through the process of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution. Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, but the contention in this case was whether this power extended to altering the Fundamental Rights.

The petitioners argued that Fundamental Rights are the core of the Constitution and cannot be altered or amended by Parliament under its power of constitutional amendment, while the respondents (State of Punjab) argued that the Constitution gave Parliament full authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment, ruled in favor of Golak Nath and held that Parliament does not have the power to amend the Constitution in such a way that it infringes upon or alters the Fundamental Rights. The judgment marked a significant departure from the earlier interpretation of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the “amending power” under Article 368 does not extend to altering or abridging the Fundamental Rights.

The key points of the judgment are as follows:

• Fundamental Rights are Immutable:

The Court held that Fundamental Rights are the very essence of the Constitution and represent a basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be amended by Parliament. It was concluded that no part of the Constitution, including Part III (Fundamental Rights), could be altered or amended so as to violate or change these rights.

• Doctrine of “Basic Structure”:

While the doctrine of “Basic Structure” was not explicitly invoked in this case, it was understood that the Fundamental Rights form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This became a foundation for the Court’s reasoning in later cases such as Kesavananda Bharati (1973), where the concept of basic structure was developed more explicitly.

• Power of Amendment:

The Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it does not have the power to alter or destroy its basic framework, particularly the Fundamental Rights. Parliament can amend other parts of the Constitution, but any amendment that diminishes or takes away Fundamental Rights would be ultra vires (beyond the powers) of Parliament.

• Overruling Previous Decisions:

The Court overruled its earlier decision in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), where it had upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Golak Nath case was seen as a significant shift in the Court’s approach to the relationship between the amendment power and Fundamental Rights.

Majority and Dissenting Opinions:

The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Subba Rao and Justice J.R. Mudholkar, who were in the majority. They were joined by Justices K.K. Mathew and H.R. Khanna, who concurred with the view that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.

However, Justice Wanchoo dissented, arguing that Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under the broad power conferred by Article 368.

Significance of the Judgment:

The Golak Nath case is of monumental significance in the development of Indian constitutional law for the following reasons:

• Limitation on Parliament’s Power:

The decision limited the power of Parliament by establishing that it could not amend the Constitution to abrogate Fundamental Rights. This made it clear that certain parts of the Constitution are sacrosanct and cannot be altered by ordinary legislative processes.

• Foundation for Basic Structure Doctrine:

While the basic structure doctrine was not explicitly formulated in this case, the judgment laid the groundwork for the Court’s later development of this principle in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court ruled that certain fundamental features of the Constitution could not be altered by amendments.

• Impact on Future Constitutional Amendments:

After the Golak Nath decision, Parliament faced the challenge of making constitutional amendments without infringing on Fundamental Rights. The decision encouraged more debate on the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary.