9.4.4. Controversial Amendments

Our discussion so far, should not create an impression that there has never been any controversy over amending the Constitution. In fact, amendments during the period 1970 to 1980 generated a lot of legal and political controversy.

The section begins by stating that while the Indian Constitution can be amended, this process has not always been smooth. Specifically, between 1970 and 1980, various amendments sparked significant debates and controversies, particularly from opposition parties who viewed these changes as overreaches by the ruling party.

Imagine a school that frequently changes its rules. Some students believe the changes are necessary for fairness, while others feel these changes are designed to restrict them. This is similar to how constitutional amendments can be viewed differently by those in power and those who oppose them.

In particular, the 38th, 39th and 42nd amendments have been the most controversial amendments so far. These three amendments were made in the background of internal emergency declared in the country from June 1975.

The 38th, 39th, and 42nd amendments are highlighted as particularly contentious. These amendments were enacted during a period known as the Emergency (1975-1977) when the government had significant powers, leading to concerns that these amendments could undermine democratic principles and individual rights.

Consider a government declaring a state of emergency during a crisis, giving it the power to change laws rapidly. Some citizens might feel these changes protect them, while others believe their freedoms are being threatened, just like the controversial amendments made during the Emergency.

The 42nd amendment was particularly seen as a wide-ranging amendment affecting large parts of the Constitution. It was also an attempt to override the ruling of the Supreme Court given in the Kesavananda case.

The 42nd amendment is emphasized for its broad scope, making substantial changes to many essential parts of the Constitution. This amendment was particularly controversial because it tried to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kesavananda case, which established the basic structure doctrine – the principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered.

Think of a company restructuring itself significantly while ignoring its founding principles. Employees might be worried because they fear that the foundational values that kept the company strong are now at risk, much like how the 42nd amendment posed a threat to constitutional integrity.

Many MPs belonging to the opposition parties were in jail when this amendment was passed in Parliament.

This statement highlights the political context during the passage of the 42nd amendment, suggesting that a lack of opposition voices in Parliament led to concerns about the democratic process. The absence of opposition MPs (many were imprisoned during the Emergency) raised alarms about the fairness of the amendment process.

Imagine a school board making significant rule changes while some student representatives are not allowed to attend meetings. This would lead to complaints about fairness and transparency. Similarly, the circumstances under which the 42nd amendment was passed led to questions about its legitimacy.

In this backdrop, elections were held in 1977 and the ruling party (Congress) was defeated. The new government thought it necessary to reconsider these controversial amendments.

Following the electoral defeat of the Congress party in 1977, the new government sought to reverse some of the controversial amendments that were seen as infringing democratic principles. This process included the 43rd and 44th amendments, which aimed to restore balance in the Constitution by overturning changes made during the Emergency.

Imagine a CEO of a company who implements strict policies during a tough economic period. Once the company stabilizes, the new leadership may change those policies to encourage a more open and collaborative environment. This reflects the political shifts and the belief that the Constitution needed to be amended back to its original principles.

--