What Is the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976?

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 is known as the Mini-Constitution because it introduced the most extensive changes ever made to the Indian Constitution. The government passed it during the Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The ruling Congress Party held overwhelming power, and the political environment limited civil liberties. The amendment attempted to strengthen the authority of the executive and Parliament. It reduced the scope of judicial review and pushed the system toward stronger central control. Later, the 43rd and 44th Amendments and important Supreme Court judgments reversed many of these changes.

Why Is the 42nd Amendment Called the Mini-Constitution?

People call this amendment a Mini-Constitution because it altered the Preamble, changed about forty articles, amended the Seventh Schedule, and introduced new parts and articles. No other amendment has attempted such a large and structural redesign of the Constitution. It tried to reshape the relationship between Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and the powers of each institution. Many scholars and exam resources use this term to describe its extensive and transformative nature.

What Was the Historical Context of the Amendment?

The amendment came during the Internal Emergency declared from 1975 to 1977. During this period, the government curtailed press freedom, restricted political rights, and arrested many opposition leaders. The Congress Party enjoyed an absolute majority in Parliament, which allowed it to pass sweeping changes without significant resistance. Scholars criticise the amendment as an attempt to entrench authoritarian rule. They argue that it weakened necessary checks and balances and reduced the autonomy of the judiciary and the federal system.

How Did the Amendment Change the Preamble?

The government added the words socialist and secular to the Preamble. India now became a “sovereign socialist secular democratic republic.” The amendment also replaced the phrase unity of the nation with unity and integrity of the nation. The change suggested a stronger emphasis on national unity and territorial integrity. These additions remain part of the Constitution today and were not reversed by later amendments.

How Did the Amendment Affect Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review?

The amendment attempted to reduce the power of courts to review constitutional changes. It declared that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 had no limitations. It also stated that no constitutional amendment could be challenged in any court. This directly attacked the basic structure doctrine that the Supreme Court had established in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The amendment also tried to give Directive Principles priority over Fundamental Rights. It said that a law passed to implement Directive Principles could not be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.

In 1980, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case struck down these provisions. The Court held that unlimited amending power would destroy the basic structure. It also ruled that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must remain balanced. The Court restored judicial review and reaffirmed that Parliament cannot destroy the core features of the Constitution.

What Are the Fundamental Duties Added by the Amendment?

The amendment inserted a new Part IVA into the Constitution. It introduced Article 51A, which listed Fundamental Duties of citizens. These duties include respecting the Constitution, national symbols, and institutions. They also call on citizens to promote harmony, protect the environment, and safeguard public property. These duties are not enforceable in courts. However, courts often cite them while interpreting laws. They also serve as moral guidelines for citizens. Many educational and civic programmes refer to them.

What Changes Did the Amendment Make to Directive Principles?

The amendment introduced new Directive Principles to expand the State’s role in social justice. Article 39A called for free legal aid and equal access to justice. Article 43A encouraged workers’ participation in the management of industries. Article 48A promoted the protection of the environment and conservation of forests and wildlife. The amendment also tried to elevate Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights. It attempted to create a more directive-driven approach to governance but in a way that reduced individual rights. The Supreme Court later restored the balance by striking down provisions that gave absolute priority to Directive Principles.

How Did the Amendment Change Parliament, the Executive, and Centre–State Relations?

The amendment extended the normal term of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies from five to six years. This change helped the government maintain political power during the Emergency. The 44th Amendment later restored the original five-year term. The amendment removed the quorum requirement in Parliament and State legislatures. This allowed the House to function even when only a few members were present.

The amendment also strengthened the Union government’s control over the States. It inserted Article 257A, which allowed the central government to deploy armed forces in States. It extended the permissible duration of President’s Rule in a State from six months to one year at a time. These changes made it easier for the Centre to dominate State governments. Later amendments and court judgments reduced this centralising tendency.

How Did the Amendment Affect the Judiciary and Other Institutions?

The amendment restricted the power of High Courts to decide constitutional questions. It introduced Article 228A, which controlled how High Courts could test the validity of State laws. This aimed to narrow the scope of judicial review and shift greater power toward Parliament. The amendment also allowed the creation of an All India Judicial Service, which would centralise the recruitment and training of judges. This idea was intended to establish uniform standards but also signalled a desire for a more “committed” judiciary aligned with the executive.

The amendment expanded Parliament’s power over its privileges and procedures. This allowed the ruling majority to exercise stronger influence over parliamentary processes. Critics argue that these moves attempted to weaken independent institutions and create bodies more aligned with the government’s ideology.

How Were the Amendment’s Provisions Rolled Back?

The Janata Party won the general election in 1977 after the Emergency ended. The new government opposed the authoritarian features of the 42nd Amendment. However, Congress still had a strong position in the Rajya Sabha, which made it impossible to repeal the entire amendment. The Janata government introduced the 43rd and 44th Amendments to undo the most controversial changes. These amendments restored judicial review, reduced emergency powers, revived the five-year term of legislatures, and removed the absolute priority of Directive Principles. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills further strengthened these corrections. Despite these rollbacks, several parts of the 42nd Amendment survive today. The additions to the Preamble, the Fundamental Duties, and many Directive Principles remain part of the Constitution.

What Is the Overall Significance of the 42nd Amendment?

The 42nd Amendment remains one of the most debated episodes in India’s constitutional history. It represents the tension between central authority and constitutional limits. Supporters claimed it promoted social justice and strengthened the role of the State. Critics argue it attempted to weaken democracy by attacking judicial independence and federalism. Its legacy is shaped by the later amendments and Supreme Court decisions that restored constitutional balance. Today, it stands as a reminder of how political power can influence constitutional design. It also highlights the resilience of the democratic framework, which eventually corrected many of its excesses.