Introduction

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that grants the right to move the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is considered to be one of the cornerstones of the Constitution, as it provides a safeguard for citizens to seek justice when their fundamental rights are violated.

However, there was a provision in the Indian Constitution, namely Article 32A, which dealt with the constitutional validity of State laws in proceedings under Article 32. This provision was later omitted, and this article aims to explore the reasons behind its omission and its implications.

Background

Article 32A was introduced in the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. This amendment was brought about during the period of the Emergency, a time when several controversial amendments were made to the Constitution.

The purpose of Article 32A was to restrict the scope of Article 32, which allowed individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 32A stated that in proceedings under Article 32, the Supreme Court shall not consider the constitutional validity of any State law.

This provision was widely criticized for diluting the power of the Supreme Court and limiting the rights of citizens to challenge State laws that violated their fundamental rights. It was seen as an attempt to curtail the independence of the judiciary and undermine the principles of justice and equality.

Omission of Article 32A

The omission of Article 32A came about through the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977. This amendment was passed soon after the Emergency was lifted and aimed to rectify some of the controversial amendments made during that period.

The omission of Article 32A was a significant step towards restoring the power and independence of the judiciary. It was seen as a reaffirmation of the fundamental right to access justice and seek remedies for the violation of fundamental rights.

The removal of Article 32A was a clear message that the Supreme Court should have the power to examine the constitutional validity of State laws in proceedings under Article 32. This reinstated the Court's authority to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and ensure the supremacy of the Constitution.

Implications

The omission of Article 32A had several implications for the constitutional framework of India. It restored the original intent of Article 32, which was to provide an effective remedy for the violation of fundamental rights.

Firstly, it reinforced the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. By allowing the Supreme Court to consider the constitutional validity of State laws, the judiciary can ensure that these laws do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

Secondly, the omission of Article 32A strengthened the concept of federalism in India. Federalism is a key feature of the Indian Constitution, which divides powers between the central government and the state governments. By allowing the Supreme Court to examine the constitutional validity of State laws, it ensures that the states do not exceed their powers and violate the fundamental rights of citizens.

Thirdly, the omission of Article 32A reaffirmed the importance of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. It emphasized the role of the Supreme Court in upholding the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law. The Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws ensures that the rights of citizens are protected and that the government acts within the limits set by the Constitution.

Conclusion

The omission of Article 32A from the Indian Constitution was a significant step towards strengthening the judiciary and upholding the fundamental rights of citizens. It restored the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutional validity of State laws in proceedings under Article 32, ensuring that justice and equality are upheld.

By removing this provision, the Constitution reaffirmed the importance of the judiciary as the protector of the Constitution and the rights of citizens. It also emphasized the principle of federalism and the need to maintain a balance between the powers of the central government and the state governments.

Overall, the omission of Article 32A was a positive development for the Indian Constitution, as it restored the original intent of Article 32 and strengthened the foundations of justice and equality in the country.