Effectiveness Of Constitutional Challenges
A constitutional challenge is a legal action where a person or group asks the court to strike down, reinterpret, or limit a law, policy, or executive action because it violates constitutional rights. The effectiveness of such challenges depends on:
Judicial review powers
Judicial independence
Nature of rights violated
Degree of arbitrariness
Legislative competence
Proportionality test
Interpretation of “reasonable restrictions”
Below are the detailed case studies illustrating when constitutional challenges succeed or fail, and why.
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
(Most important case on constitutional amendments and judicial review)
Issue:
Whether Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy the “basic structure” (e.g., rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, equality).
Effectiveness of Constitutional Challenge:
Hugely effective.
The challenge successfully limited Parliament’s power to prevent future constitutional abuse.
Introduced the basic structure doctrine, which is now the bedrock of constitutional review.
Significance:
Protects democracy from “majoritarian overreach.”
Ensures that any amendment violating basic rights can be struck down.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
(Expanded Article 21 and due process doctrine)
Issue:
Whether the government could arbitrarily seize a passport without giving reasons.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held:
“Procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary.
Article 21 is linked with Articles 14 and 19.
Effectiveness of Constitutional Challenge:
Transformative ruling.
Enabled citizens to challenge government actions violating liberty/due process.
Greatly expanded the meaning of "life and personal liberty."
Significance:
The case converted Article 21 into a source of numerous rights (privacy, dignity, environment, education).
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
(Reaffirmed basic structure; limits on amending power)
Issue:
Challenge to constitutional amendments that gave Parliament unlimited amending power.
Decision:
The Court held:
Limited amending power is part of the basic structure.
Parliament cannot enlarge its own power to destroy fundamental rights.
Effectiveness:
Extremely effective.
Prevented authoritarian constitutional changes.
Balanced Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights.
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
(Judicial review over Ninth Schedule laws)
Issue:
Whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (protected from challenge) can still be reviewed.
Decision:
Any law, even in the Ninth Schedule, can be struck down if it violates basic structure or fundamental rights.
Effectiveness:
Very effective.
Restored court power to scrutinize laws previously shielded.
Prevented misuse of the Ninth Schedule to protect arbitrary laws (e.g., land acquisition, reservation laws).
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
(Decriminalization of Section 377 – Right to Equality and Dignity)
Issue:
Section 377 IPC criminalized consensual same-sex relations. The challenge argued it violated rights to equality, dignity, and privacy.
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional parts of Section 377.
Effectiveness:
Highly effective challenge.
Restored fundamental rights to a historically marginalized group.
Reinforced that Constitutional morality > Social morality.
Significance:
Enhanced LGBTQ+ rights and expanded interpretation of privacy and dignity.
6. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
(Triple Talaq unconstitutional)
Issue:
Whether instantaneous triple talaq violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Decision:
Court held instant triple talaq arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Effectiveness:
Strong example of a constitutional challenge leading to social reform.
Later Parliament passed legislation based on the judgment.
7. Aadhaar Case — K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018)
(Right to Privacy as Fundamental Right; Aadhaar constitutional limits)
Issue:
Does the Constitution guarantee a right to privacy?
Is Aadhaar violating privacy?
Decision (Two Parts):
Privacy declared a fundamental right under Article 21.
Aadhaar upheld but with significant restrictions, such as banning its use by private companies.
Effectiveness:
Effective in establishing privacy as a core constitutional right.
Partially effective regarding Aadhaar (reform, not repeal).
8. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
(Misuse of President’s Rule — Federalism as Basic Structure)
Issue:
Whether President’s Rule can be imposed based on political motives.
Decision:
Court held:
Federalism is part of the basic structure.
Judicial review applies to President’s Rule.
Mala fide dissolution of state governments can be struck down.
Effectiveness:
Very effective in controlling executive overreach.
Reduced misuse of Article 356 dramatically.
9. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
(Right to livelihood under Article 21)
Issue:
Whether slum dwellers can be evicted without rehabilitation.
Decision:
Court held:
Right to livelihood is part of the right to life.
But eviction was allowed with safeguards.
Effectiveness:
Moderately effective.
Recognized new constitutional rights but offered limited immediate relief.
⭐ Overall Analysis — How Effective Are Constitutional Challenges?
Highly Effective When:
Government action is arbitrary or discriminatory
Fundamental rights clearly violated
Statutes exceed legislative competence
Executive misuse of power is proven
Violates “basic structure”
Disproportionate restrictions on liberty
Less Effective When:
Matters involve national security (courts show restraint)
Complex economic or fiscal policy is challenged
Evidence is inconclusive
Courts defer to Parliament’s wisdom
Impact of Effective Constitutional Challenges:
Strengthening judicial review
Expanding scope of fundamental rights
Protection of minorities
Limiting executive and legislative overreach
Constitutional evolution through interpretation
RELATED Blog
comments