Appendix A: Political Responses to Judgments Striking Down Legislation in India
| No. | Case | Details | |||
| 1. | Motilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1089] | The Allahabad High Court made some observations about the constitutional impermissibility of nationalization of industry. This spurred a 'clarificatory addition'[1090] to Art. 19(6) of the Constitution, making it clear that a legislative scheme of nationalization will not affect the freedom of trade under Art. 19(1)(g).[1091] | |||
| 2. | Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[1092] | The Supreme Court struck down section 9(1A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 on the basis that it violated Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| 3. | Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi[1093] | The Supreme Court struck down section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 on the basis that it violated Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| Mode of Response | Prospective/ Retrospective | Response Time — between Decision and Enactment of Response (in Months) | Party in Government at the Time of Enactment of Response | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 13.2 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 12.7 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 12.7 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| No. | Case | Details | |||
| 4. | Amar Nath Bali v. State[1094] | The High Court of Punjab struck down section 4(1) (h) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 on the basis that it violated Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| 5. | Shaila Bala Devi v. Chief Secretary[1095] | The High Court of Patna struck down section 4(1) (a) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 on the basis that it violated Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| 6. | Srinivasa v. State of Madras[1096] | The High Court of Madras struck down section 4(1) (d) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 on the basis that it violated Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| 7. | Tara Singh v. State[1097] | The High Court of Punjab struck down section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the basis that it violated the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. | |||
| 8. | Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar[1098] | The High Court of Patna struck down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for violating the right to equality under Art. 14. | |||
| Mode of Response | Prospective/ Retrospective | Response Time — between Decision and Enactment of Response (in Months) | Party in Government at the Time of Enactment of Response | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 9.1 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 8.1 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 7.5 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 6.6 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. | Retrospective | 3.2 | Indian National Congress (Interim Government) | ||
| No. | Case | Details | |||
| 9. | State of West Bengal v. Bella Banerjee[1099] | The Supreme Court struck down a portion of proviso (b) to section 8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 for violating the right to compensation on compulsory acquisition of private property by the state under Art. 31(2) of the Constitution. | |||
| 10. | Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala[1100] | The Supreme Court struck down the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961 in relation to its application to certain kinds of land, as it violated the right to equality under Art. 14 of the Constitution and did not fall within the protective garb of Art. 31A. | |||
| 11. | Sukapuram v. State of Kerala[1101] | The Kerala High Court struck down the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961 on the basis that it violated Arts 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution and did not fall within the protection of Art. 31A. | |||
| 12. | R.C. Cooper v. Union of India[1102] | The Supreme Court struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, as it breached Art. 31 of the Constitution. | |||
| Mode of Response | Prospective/ Retrospective | Response Time — between Decision and Enactment of Response (in Months) | Party in Government at the Time of Enactment of Response | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment and Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. | Retrospective | 16.5 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. | Retrospective | 30.5 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. | Retrospective | 19.5 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Fundamental rights amendment—the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. | Retrospective | 26.3 | Indian National Congress | ||
| No. | Case | Details | |||
| 13. | Balmadies Plantations v. State of Tamil Nadu[1103] | The Supreme Court struck down one aspect of the Gudalur Janmam Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 as it violated Arts 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution and did not fall within the protection of Art. 31A. | |||
| 14. | Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala[1104] | The Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Kerala High Court[1105] striking down provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, as amended in 1969 and 1971. | |||
| 15. | Malankara Rubber v. State of Kerala[1106] | The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, as amended in 1969 and 1971, on the ground that they violated Art. 14 of the Constitution. | |||
| 16. | Paschimbanga v. State of West Bengal[1107] | The Calcutta High Court struck down section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979. | |||
| Mode of Response | Prospective/ Retrospective | Response Time — between Decision and Enactment of Response (in Months) | Party in Government at the Time of Enactment of Response | ||
| Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (ThirtyÂfourth Amendment) Act, 1974. | Retrospective | 28.6 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972. | Retrospective | 1.4 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972. | Retrospective | 1.4 | Indian National Congress | ||
| Ninth Schedule amendment—the Constitution (SixtyÂsixth Amendment) Act, 1990. | Retrospective | 48.6 | National Front (Janata Dal, Telugu Desam Party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Assam Gana Parishad, Indian Congress (Socialist)) | ||
More on the topic Appendix A: Political Responses to Judgments Striking Down Legislation in India:
- Appendix A: Political Responses to Judgments Striking Down Legislation in India
- Conclusion
- Chandrachud Chintan. Balanced Constitutionalism: Courts and Legislatures in India and the United Kingdom. Oxford University Press,2017. — 340 p., 2017
- The Time Factor
- Constitutional Convention of Compliance
- Comparing Decisional Space in India and the UK
- Chapters 2 and 3 sought to establish the negative claim made by this book.
- Remedial Space in India and the UK
- This chapter begins developing the negative claim made by the book—that the HRA does not enable the legislature to assert its understanding of rights more freely than judicial supremacy under the Indian Constitution.
- Parliamentary Debates