Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India: Difference between revisions

The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha (For:353 votes, Against:20),<ref name = "Subverting the Constitution">{{cite book|title=Subverting the Constitution|date=1 January 1977|publisher=Abhinav Publications|pages=37–41;183|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xzx0miLvzfsC|author=G. G. Mirchandani|isbn=9788170170570|access-date=8 December 2013}}</ref> on 1 December 1971. Clause 2 of the Bill sought to amend article 31(2) of the Constitution to clarify that no law providing for the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property could be called in question in any Court on the ground that the amount fixed or determined under such law to be given to the owner of the property is not adequate. During the consideration of the clause by the Lok Sabha, Gokhale moved an amendment which sought to add the following proviso at the end of the proposed clause 2 of article 31, "Provided that in making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1) of article 30, the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause". This amendment was accepted by the House, and the clause, as amended, was adopted by the Lok Sabha and the [[Rajya Sabha]] on 1 and 8 December 1971, respectively. Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill were adopted, in the original form, by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 1 and 8 December 1971, respectively. The Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was considered by the Rajya Sabha on 7 and 8 December and passed on 8 December 1971.<ref name="Constitution Amendment in India"/>

The Supreme Court reviewed its decision in ''[[I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|Golaknath v. State of Punjab]]'', in 1971 in ''Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala'', and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges. The Bench gave eleven judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others.<ref name="Lok Sabha Secretariat 2">{{cite web|title=Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process|url=http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf|work=Lok Sabha Secretariat|access-date=1 December 2013|pages=16–17|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013055/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf|archive-date=3 December 2013|df=dmy-all}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> The Court held, by a margin of 7-6, that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament (thus overruling the 1967 case), the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment".<ref name=autogenerated1>{{Cite book  | last = Austin  | first = Granville  | title = Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience  | publisher = Oxford University Press  | year = 1999  | location = New Delhi  | pages = 258–277 | isbn = 019565610-5 }}</ref>