| The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 | |
|---|---|
| Parliament of India | |
| |
| Citation | 25th Amendment |
| Territorial extent | India |
| Passed by | Lok Sabha |
| Passed | 1 December 1971 |
| Passed by | Rajya Sabha |
| Passed | 8 December 1971 |
| Assented to | 20 April 1972 |
| Commenced | 20 April 1972 |
| Legislative history | |
| First chamber: Lok Sabha | |
| Bill title | The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1971 |
| Introduced by | H.R. Gokhale |
| Introduced | 28 July 1971 |
| Committee report | Law Commission of India: Forty-sixth Report on The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1971 |
| Summary | |
| Curtailed the right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. Also exempted any law giving effect to the Directive Principles from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights. | |
| Status: Not fully in force | |
The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts.[1] The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.
In 1970, the Supreme Court, in its judgement on Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India, filed by R. C. Cooper, popularly known as the Bank Nationalization case, held that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation, that is, the equivalent money of the property compulsorily acquired. The Court also held that a law which seeks to acquire or requisition property for public purposes must satisfy the requirement of Article19(1)(f). The 25th Amendment sought to overcome the restrictions imposed on the government by this ruling.
Legal expert V.G. Ramachandran described the 24th and 25th Amendments as "not 'tinkering' with the Constitution. It is a veritable slaughter of the Constitution."[2] He stated that the 25th Amendment "smacks of totalitarianism and hurry to achieve socialism instantly overnight".[2]
Section 2(a) and 2(b), and the first part of section 3 of the 25th Amendment were upheld by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973 as valid. However, the second part of section 3, which prevented judicial review of any law that gives effect to Directive Principles, was declared unconstitutional.