CONSTITUTIONAL DARK HORSES: THE OVER LOOKED AMENDMENTS

INTRODUCTION

India’s law of land is a strong testament of silent and unsung revolutions. With adoption of each and every constitutional amendment acts, we proudly embrace changes and implement reforms governing the prevalent circumstances of society. Hence, it becomes the civic responsibility of citizens to acquaint themselves with these reforms and appreciate the value they impart to their lives. This fosters greater awareness and responsible participation in democratic processes. It also encourages a deeper engagement with the constitutional framework that ultimately governs and safeguards their rights and aspirations. Despite this, some Constitutional Amendment Acts receive greater attention and therefore reach the public more widely. However, others that equally benefit society often remain silent guiding principles, shaping governance in the background. This article deals with such few amendments which have had a great impact on society but they became the constitutional dark horses. It delves into 4^th Amendment Act of 1956, 17^th Amendment Act of 1964, 26^th Amendment Act of 1971, 44th Amendment Act of 1978 & 103rd Amendment Act of 2019 which were not only among most crucial amendments but also instrumental in shaping the evolving constitutional and socio-economic landscape of India.

THE SHADOWED AMENDMENTS

4^th Amendment Act of 1956

This amendment aimed at protecting social welfare and land reform laws from court challenges by limiting the scope of the Right to Property. Since the judiciary was interpreting the property laws very broadly and even minor restrictions on anyone’s personal property was treated as deprivation, hence the government had to pay compensation whenever the property was taken. The clause 1 and 2 of Article 31 empowered citizens to avail such compensation. Therefore, the Bill was introduced with the objective of modify Articles 31[1], 31A, and 305 and revising the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The difference between compulsory acquisition and laws controlling use of a particular land was given to govern the property laws in more systematic way for better implementation of article 31. The government also planned to add more laws (State + Central) into the Ninth Schedule so they would be safe from judicial review.

Despite introducing significant changes to the Constitution of India, this amendment did not receive much attention in public or academic discussions. It played an important role in addressing challenges[2] faced by social welfare laws, which were often questioned for violating Fundamental Rights. To resolve this issue, Articles 31A and 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, were introduced to protect such laws from judicial review. These provisions ensured that welfare legislation could be implemented effectively without being easily challenged in courts.

17^th Amendment Act of 1964

The State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was to come into effect through this amendment on the recommendations of the State Reorganisation Committee. The Second and Seventh Schedules of the Constitution were amended to reflect this new arrangement. Earlier states were divided into Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D which was now transformed into 14 States and 6 Union Territories[3]. This time the division was made mainly on the basis of on language and administrative convenience.

Changes in the Judiciary

High Courts’ jurisdiction extended: High Courts could now also serve Union Territories for better access to justice

Common High Court allowed: One High Court can serve two or more states which saves resources and improves efficiency.

More judges provision: Appointment of Additional Judges and Acting judges which helped reduce case backlog and ensures speedy justice

Even after establishing a more structured system for the reorganisation of the territory into 14 states and 6 Union Territories, based mainly on language and administrative convenience, this amendment did not gain much importance. It played a crucial role in shaping the present structure of India, as the states we know today have emerged through the idea and implementation of this constitutional amendment. By reorganising boundaries and improving administrative clarity, it laid the foundation for a more efficient and well-organised system of governance.

Despite its significant contribution, it often remains overlooked in major discussions. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of citizens to understand and realise the root cause of this well-organised system, and to appreciate the vision behind such reforms. Recognising the importance of this amendment not only deepens our constitutional awareness but also helps us value the systematic development of India’s political and administrative framework.

26^th Amendment Act of 1971

This amendment led to abolition of privy purse[4] paid to former rulers of princely states which were incorporated into the Indian Republic. It also amended Article 366 to remove the recognition of rulers, inserted Article 363A to formally end their recognition and privileges. Articles 291 and 362 were repealed which had earlier guaranteed these benefits. Through this amendment, the Government of India aimed to promote equality and remove feudal practices, ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the Constitution.

Through these changes, the Government of India aimed to promote the principle of equality and eliminate feudal practices that were inconsistent with a democratic system. By removing such distinctions, the amendment ensured that all citizens are treated equally under the Constitution, regardless of their past status. It reflected a move towards a more just, uniform, and egalitarian social order in independent India. But even this constitutional amendment is not widely discussed in the society in fact this reform directly sets a base for better implementation of the golden triangle i.e. right to equality, right to freedom and right to life and personal liberty.

44^th Amendment Act of 1978

The 44th Amendment[5] brought the Constitution back to equilibrium by correcting a scale to ensure fairness whereas the 42nd Amendment gave heavy powers to the government. The main objective of this amendment was to reverse the excesses of previous amendment and restore democracy, Fundamental Rights, and judicial independence after the Emergency in India 1975-1977. It focused on protecting the fundamental rights from suspension with emphasising on individual liberty over government control. Safeguards for emergency provision under Article 352 were modified wherein emergency was now be declared only on written advice of the Cabinet (not just PM). The term “Internal disturbance” was replaced with “armed rebellion”. Further it was given that Fundamental Rights (Articles 20 & 21) cannot be suspended even during Emergency. Right to property was removed from Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g) and added as a legal right under Article 300A. the amendment inserted Article 30(1A) to ensure fair compensation if minority institutions’ property is acquired. Lok Sabha & State Assemblies term was brought back to 5 years by this amendment which was earlier extended to 6 years by 42nd Amendment. To comply with the basic structure doctrine the judicial review system was re-established where courts gained power to check unconstitutional laws. To prevent centres control on state limits were put on the emergency provisions that Presidents’ Rule cannot be extended beyond 1 year easily.

Despite introducing significant reforms, the 44th Amendment has not received as much attention as the 42nd Amendment. The 42nd Amendment of 1976[6] is often called the ‘Mini Constitution’ because of its wide-ranging changes. However, the 44th Amendment, which corrected, limited, and refined many of those provisions to ensure their proper implementation, has remained relatively overlooked, becoming a true ‘dark horse’ in constitutional history.

103^rd Amendment Act of 2019

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act[7] introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government jobs and educational institutions. It amended Articles 15 and 16 by adding clauses 15(6) and 16(6), which allow the State to make special provisions and provide reservation for EWS. This reservation is only for people from the general category who are not already covered under SC, ST, or OBC reservations. To qualify as Economically Weaker Section, a person must have a family income below ₹8 lakh per year and limited property, such as not owning more than 5 acres of agricultural land or a large house or flat. The amendment applies to all educational institutions, including private ones, except minority institutions under Article 30(1). The main aim of this amendment was to address economic inequality and provide equal opportunities to those who are financially weak but do not benefit from existing caste-based reservations. It also promotes inclusive growth by ensuring that poverty does not become a barrier to education and employment. The amendment is in line with Article 46 of the Directive Principles, which directs the State to support weaker sections of society. It was also introduced due to increasing social and political demand from economically weaker people in the general category who felt excluded from reservation benefits.

Overall, the amendment seeks to balance the reservation system by including economic criteria along with social justice, thereby expanding the scope of affirmative action in India. While society is gaining benefits from this reform on a large scale, many people remain unaware of its significance, as they are neither properly informed nor made aware by key flag barrers and policymakers. This lack of awareness reduces its true impact. The amendment holds equal importance to fundamental rights such as the right to equality and freedom, and therefore, it deserves greater recognition, understanding, and public attention in order to ensure its effective implementation and acceptance.

III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 200

The tabular representation specifies that India is not alone in under rating the crucial amendments which have had great impact but never give the same attention and importance as to some famous amendments such as 1^st, 42^nd, 73^rd, 74^th or 106^th amendment acts of the constitution. Underrated amendments often suffer from what constitutional theory calls ‘visibility bias’ wherein amendments that do not produce immediate political sensations are undervalued despite their long-term structural consequences. Underrated amendments across jurisdictions reveal that constitutional significance is not always proportional to public or academic attention. While the U.S. and Australia exhibit evolutionary constitutionalism, India reflects transformative constitutionalism, and Russia demonstrates centralized constitutional adaptation. Their “underrated” status stems less from insignificance and more from the subtlety, technicality, or political framing of their impact. Hence, the Government need to sensitize the citizens to be aware about the amendments which have been enacted for their betterment. The aftereffect of these amendments, whether good or bad, is to be faced by the citizens. Therefore, it becomes their utmost responsibility to the changes that are being made in the law of land to transform the legal framework as per the dynamic ecosystem.

CONCLUSION

Upon a thoroughly going through these dark horses or under rated amendments of the Indian Constitution and comparative analysis of constitutional frameworks across jurisdictions, it becomes evident that the amendments causing visible turbulence in the society, whether they have long term impact or not, are widely discussed and remembered for long. However, the amendments which silently empower, protect or provide certain rights are often overshadowed by such hyped amendments. It reflects how even after initiating a move towards more just, uniform, and egalitarian social order in independent India the constitutional amendment is not widely discussed in the society. The 4th, 17th, 26th, 44th, and 103rd Constitutional Amendments, despite receiving limited attention, have played a foundational role in steering India’s constitutional development.

This article highlighted the Constitutional dark horses or the overlooked amendments as well as it depicted the data of India, United Staes, Russia and Australia to critically analyse the reason for overshadowed amendments and their impact as compared to the widely discussed amendments. India, along with many more countries, has this loophole in the legal system wherein citizens are not being adequately sensitized to be aware about value-based reforms, but rather only about changes that have a visible and immediate upheaval in the society. Thus, a shift towards sustained constitutional awareness, rather than reaction to visible upheavals, is imperative for realizing the true essence of these reforms.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 521 (India).

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625 (India).

K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1080 (India).

State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, (1969) 1 S.C.C. 509 (India).

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 845 (India).

Raghunathrao Ganpatrao v. Union of India, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 191 (India).

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 55 of 2019 (S.C. Nov. 7, 2022) (India).

STATUTES

Constitution of India, 1950

State Reorganisation Act, 1956

REPORTS AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

State Reorganisation Committee, 1953

S R Sinha Commission Report, 2010

ONLINE SOURCES

Supreme Court Observer

Indian Kanoon

[1] K.K. Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, 1960

[2] State Of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, 1969

[3] Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, 1965

[4] Shri Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs Union of India, 1993

[5] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, 1976

[6] Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980

[7] Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022