Conflict with the judiciary

In these years, the government and the Supreme Court clashed over how far Parliament could change the Constitution. There were three questions:

• Can Parliament abridge (reduce) Fundamental Rights?
• Can it curtail the right to property?
• Can it abridge Fundamental Rights in order to carry out the Directive Principles?

The government said yes: Parliament represents the people and must be able to bring social change, such as land reform. The Court said no each time, which led to a crisis.

The turning point was the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot change its 'basic structure', its basic features such as democracy, secularism, federalism and judicial review. This is the basic structure doctrine, and it still protects the Constitution today.

Supersession of judges: in 1973, when the post of Chief Justice fell vacant, the government broke the custom of appointing the senior-most judge. It passed over three senior judges (who had ruled against the government) and appointed Justice A.N. Ray. This was widely seen as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Some in the government spoke of wanting a 'committed' judiciary and a 'committed' bureaucracy: judges and officials committed to the government's policies and vision, rather than neutral. Critics said this would destroy the checks and balances of democracy.

The climax came in 1975, when the High Court declared Indira Gandhi's own election invalid (next lesson).