24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

24th Amendment 1971 — formally the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 — was Parliament's direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), and it settled, for a time, one of the most consequential questions in Indian constitutional law: can Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights at all? The amendment answered yes, by rewriting Articles 13 and 368 to put that power beyond doubt.

The Golak Nath Ruling That Triggered the Amendment

In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court was asked to test the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which had inserted certain state land-reform laws into the Ninth Schedule. In deciding this, the Court reversed its own earlier position. Earlier rulings had held that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 was not "law" within the meaning of Article 13, and therefore could not be struck down merely for conflicting with a Fundamental Right. In Golak Nath, the Supreme Court departed from this view. It held that Fundamental Rights occupy a "transcendental and immutable" position in the constitutional scheme, so Parliament could not abridge or take away any of them. Crucially, the Court also ruled that a constitutional amendment act is itself "law" for the purposes of Article 13, meaning it could be declared void if it violated a Fundamental Right.

What the 24th Amendment Changed

Parliament's response to Golak Nath was the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, which amended both Article 13 and Article 368. It declared explicitly that Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment made under Article 368, reversing the practical effect of the Golak Nath judgment. The amendment also made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill once passed by Parliament, removing any discretion to withhold or delay assent on such a bill.

Why Article 368 Mattered

Article 368 is the constitutional provision governing amendments, and it allows for more than one procedure depending on the provision being changed. The Constitution can be amended by a simple majority of Parliament (treated as an ordinary legislative act and not counted as an amendment "under Article 368" for certain purposes), by a special majority of Parliament, or by a special majority combined with ratification by at least half the state legislatures for provisions touching the federal structure. By rewriting Article 368 itself, the 24th Amendment reinforced Parliament's amending power at the level of the very provision that defines how amendments happen — making the change structurally central rather than a one-off statutory fix.

Significance

The 24th Amendment is significant less for procedural detail and more for what it represents: the first major round in an ongoing contest between Parliament's amending power and the judiciary's role in protecting Fundamental Rights. Because Fundamental Rights are constitutionally entrenched — changeable only by constitutional amendment, not ordinary legislation — the question of whether Parliament could reach them through Article 368 went to the heart of how rigid or flexible India's rights framework would be. The 24th Amendment settled the question in Parliament's favour by textual amendment, asserting that the amending power under Article 368 extends to every part of the Constitution, including Part III.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368.
• It was enacted directly in response to the Supreme Court's Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) verdict.
• It made presidential assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill obligatory.
• Golak Nath (1967) itself arose from a challenge to the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which inserted state laws into the Ninth Schedule.

Mains

• Trace the sequence from Golak Nath (1967) to the 24th Amendment (1971), and explain what constitutional question each step resolved.
• Discuss why the entrenchment of Fundamental Rights makes the scope of Parliament's amending power under Article 368 a matter of continuing constitutional debate.
• Assess the significance of making presidential assent to constitutional amendment bills obligatory.

FAQ

Q1. Why was the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 passed? It was passed to reverse the practical effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Parliament could not abridge or take away Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment.

Q2. Which articles did the 24th Amendment change? It amended Article 13 and Article 368, declaring that Parliament has the power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights by way of a constitutional amendment.

Q3. What did Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) hold? It held that Fundamental Rights have a transcendental and immutable position that Parliament cannot abridge, and that a constitutional amendment is itself "law" under Article 13 and can be struck down for violating a Fundamental Right.

Q4. Did the 24th Amendment change the President's role in the amendment process? Yes. It made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by Parliament.

Q5. What triggered the Golak Nath case itself? A challenge to the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which had inserted certain state land-reform laws into the Ninth Schedule.

Quick Revision

• 24th Amendment Act, 1971 = Parliament's response to Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967).
• Amended Articles 13 and 368.
• Declared Parliament's power to abridge/take away Fundamental Rights via constitutional amendment.
• Made presidential assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill obligatory.
• Golak Nath (1967) arose from a challenge to the 17th Amendment Act (1964), which added state laws to the Ninth Schedule.
• Article 368 amendment procedures: simple majority, special majority, special majority + state ratification (for federal provisions).

Sources

• Constitution of India, Articles 13 and 368 — legislative.gov.in
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) — Supreme Court of India Judgments

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.