Congress MP Jairam Ramesh recently criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi's selective criticism of the 42nd Amendment during a debate on the Constitution in the winter session of Parliament.
Ramesh pointed out that while the Prime Minister and his colleagues had strongly condemned Indira Gandhi for the 42nd Amendment, they conveniently overlooked the fact that she, along with other Congress MPs, had voted in favour of the 44th Amendment, which removed several provisions introduced by the 42nd Amendment.
The 42nd Amendment, passed in December 1976 during Indira Gandhi's tenure as Prime Minister, was seen as one of the most controversial changes to the Constitution. It included provisions that critics argued altered the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
However, Ramesh argued that the Prime Minister’s attack on the 42nd Amendment ignored the reality that many of its provisions remain vital parts of the Constitution to this day. These provisions include the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble, which the Supreme Court recently affirmed as part of the Constitution's basic structure.
Ramesh highlighted several important provisions from the 42nd Amendment that are still active in the Constitution.
These include Article 39-A, which ensures equal justice and legal aid, Article 43-A, Article 48-A (which focuses on the protection of the environment, forests, and wildlife), and Article 51-A, which outlines the duties of citizens. These provisions, he emphasised, remain integral to India's legal and constitutional framework.
Furthermore, Ramesh pointed out the inclusion of issues like education, population planning, and environmental protection in the Seventh Schedule under the Concurrent List.
This means both the Union and state governments share responsibility for these areas, an inclusion stemming from the 42nd Amendment. Despite the strong criticism it faced, Ramesh underlined that the 42nd Amendment's influence continues to shape India’s constitutional landscape almost five decades later.
The Congress leader also responded to the Prime Minister’s remarks regarding the 39th Amendment, which had been passed during the Emergency in 1975.
The amendment had made it impossible for courts to challenge the election of key constitutional figures, including the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker.
Prime Minister Modi had noted in Parliament that this amendment restricted judicial powers and allowed the government to curtail fundamental rights, especially during the Emergency period.
He also drew attention to how the judiciary was compromised during the Emergency, citing the example of Justice HR Khanna, who had ruled against the government and was subsequently denied the position of Chief Justice of India despite his seniority.
Prime Minister Modi’s criticism of the 42nd Amendment also included remarks on how the government, under Indira Gandhi, had overruled a Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution to reduce judicial power. This, he argued, contributed to the misuse of the Constitution during the Emergency, when democratic freedoms were severely curtailed.
Despite these criticisms, Ramesh’s response emphasised that the 42nd Amendment's impact on the Constitution is far from one-sided.
He acknowledged that, while certain provisions had been removed by the 44th Amendment, the majority of the changes made in 1976 continue to play an essential role in ensuring India’s democratic values, environmental protection, and access to justice.
The Congress leader's remarks serve as a reminder of the complex legacy of the 42nd Amendment, illustrating how political narratives can often overlook the more enduring aspects of constitutional reform.
In this ongoing debate, the selective criticisms of historical amendments point to a larger discussion about the evolution of India’s Constitution.
Ramesh’s comments suggest that a more nuanced understanding of past amendments is necessary, acknowledging both the contentious and constructive elements of the 42nd Amendment that have shaped modern India.