25th Constitutional Amendment Act, Provisions, Significance

The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed to give more importance to the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India. The amendment aimed to make it easier for the government to implement laws related to social and economic justice, even if such laws affected certain Fundamental Rights.

25th Constitutional Amendment Act Background

• Before this amendment, Article 31 of the Constitution of India provided that when the government acquired private property for a public purpose, it had to pay compensation to the owner.
• However, in the R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that compensation must be adequate and fair, and the courts could examine whether the compensation given by the government was reasonable.
• This created difficulties for the government in implementing certain economic reforms. Therefore, it was considered necessary to amend the Constitution so that such reforms could be carried out more easily.

25th Constitutional Amendment Act Key Provisions

• Change in Article 31: The amendment changed Article 31 of the Constitution of India by replacing the word “compensation” with the word “amount.”
• This meant that when the government acquired property, courts could not question whether the amount given was adequate.
• Limitation on Fundamental Rights: The amendment stated that laws related to property acquisition for a public purpose would not be affected by Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which deals with certain Fundamental Rights.
• Insertion of Article 31C: A new article, Article 31C of the Constitution of India, was inserted. It provided that laws made to implement certain Directive Principles, especially those mentioned in Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India and Article 39(c) of the Constitution of India, would not be considered invalid even if they violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 19 of the Constitution of India, or Article 31 of the Constitution of India. It also said that such laws cannot be questioned in court if they contain a declaration that they implement Article 39(b) and (c). Later in Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court struck down this part that removed judicial review.

‹ ›

25th Constitutional Amendment Act Case Laws

Several important Supreme Court judgments are connected with the 25th Amendment Act. These cases clarified the limits of Parliament’s power and the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case challenged the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments. The Supreme Court upheld the change from “compensation” to “amount”, but struck down the part of Article 31C that removed judicial review. The judgment also introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which states that Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court held that the Constitution is based on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It reaffirmed the limits placed on Article 31C in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
• R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) (Bank Nationalization Case): The Court ruled that when the government acquires private property, it must provide fair compensation equal to the property’s value. The 25th Amendment was passed partly to overcome this judgment.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court upheld the first part of Article 31C and again confirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.

25th Constitutional Amendment Act Significance

The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was important because it tried to balance Fundamental Rights with Directive Principles of State Policy. It gave the government more power to carry out economic and social reforms, especially those related to the distribution of resources and reduction of economic inequality in India.