Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act 1964 – Indian Polity – Free PDF Download

17^th amendment 1964

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

• Article 31A of the Constitution provides that a law in respect of the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall not be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14, article 19 or article 31.
• The protection of this article is available only in respect of such tenures as were estates on the 26th January 1950, when the Constitution came into force.
• The expression “estate” has been defined differently in different States and, as a result of the transfer of land from one State to another on account of the reorganisation of States, the expression has come to be defined differently in different parts of the same State
• many of the land reform enactments relate to lands which are not included in an estate. Several State Acts relating to land reform were struck down on the ground that the provisions of those Acts were violative of articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution and that the protection of article 31A was not available to them.
• It is, therefore, proposed to amend the definition of “estate” in article 31A of the Constitution by including therein, lands held under ryotwari settlement and also other lands in respect of which provisions are normally made in land reform enactments.
• the expression “estate” shall, in relation to any local area have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and shall also include-
• (i) any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in the States of Madras and Kerala, any janmam right;
• (ii) any land held under ryotwari settlement;
• (iii) any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest land, land for pasture or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village artisans;’.

Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964

• Prohibition of the acquisition of land under personal cultivation unless the market value of the land is paid as compensation.
• Included 44 more Acts in the Ninth Schedule

Golaknath Vs State of Punjab 1967

• Further, the petitioner contended that the fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the constitution cannot be taken away by the parliament. (U/A 19(1)(f)
• They are the essential and integral part of the constitution without which constitution is like a body without a soul.
• The petitioner also argued that Article 368 of our constitution only defines the procedure for amending the constitution.
• It does not give the power to the parliament to amend the constitution.
• They sought to have the seventeenth amendment – which had placed the Punjab Act in ninth schedule – declared ultra vires (beyond the powers)

Questions before Court

• Whether the parliament has the absolute power and the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution or not?

Golaknath Vs State of Punjab 1967

• the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent Assembly.
• The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment “takes away or abridges” a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
• Therefore, to save the democracy from an autocratic actions of the parliament the majority held that parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India
• The majority said that fundamental rights are the same as natural rights. These rights are important for the growth and development of a human being.

In Response to it,  Parliament

• The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368.
• It declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such an Act, will not be a law under the meaning of Article 13.
• Also, Made it compulsory for the President to give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill.
• The 25th Amendment Act, 1972, Restricted property rights and compensation in case the state takes over private property

Constitutional Amendment Series Download Free PDF

Sharing is caring!