In this series, it has already been reported (IE, July 24) that her constant struggle to overcome judicial “hurdles” to bank nationalisation and abolition of princes’ privy purses had exacerbated Indira Gandhi’s conflict with the higher judiciary. However, the confrontation had started much earlier and over a different issue. Moreover, the fight was on behalf of Parliament as an institution. Personalisation of power came later.

To begin from the beginning, for the first 17 years since the commencement of the Constitution, Parliament’s right to amend the basic law was unfettered as long as it adhered to Article 368 requiring that an amendment be passed by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting as well as a clear majority of the total membership of the House. In February 1967, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, by a majority of four to three, debarred Parliament from amending the fundamental rights. And the CJ added, for good measure, that Parliament could enlarge these rights but not restrict them. This was the famous Golak Nath case.

It has been well said that Subba Rao had gone too far. He wanted to “save the Constitution”. But he succeeded in provoking what he had intended to prevent: increased parliamentary authority to amend the Constitution and a Parliament strengthened at the expense of the Supreme Court. For, no sooner had the Golak Nath judgment been delivered than Parliament was in uproar. Most opposition parties were at one with the government on this score. Within the Congress party, factional fightings intense. Yet, the supporters of Indira Gandhi and those of Morarji Desai (who was then out of the government) were united in demanding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution be restored immediately.

... contd.