1. Introduction

The case of Parkash Singh Badal And Others v. Union Of India And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 1987) is a landmark judgment that significantly impacted the constitutional framework governing political defections in India. This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of the judgment, exploring its background, key issues, legal reasoning, and its broader implications on Indian democracy.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The three petitions filed by members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly sought to quash notices issued by the Speaker under Article 191(2) of the Constitution, read with clauses of the Tenth Schedule (commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law). The petitioners challenged the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, alleging it was ultra vires and violated the basic structure of the Constitution by impinging upon the judiciary's power of review.

The High Court meticulously examined the provisions of the amendment, particularly focusing on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Tenth Schedule. It concluded that paragraph 6 did not usurp the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 or the Supreme Court's under Article 136. However, paragraph 7, which aimed to exclude judicial review of disqualification matters, lacked the necessary ratification as mandated by the proviso to Article 368. Consequently, paragraph 7 was declared unconstitutional, rendering it null and void. The rest of the amendment remained upheld, thereby preserving the Anti-Defection Law's primary provisions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several pivotal cases that shaped the court's interpretation of constitutional amendments and their impact on the basic structure:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) - Established the basic structure doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
• Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India (AIR 1965 SC 1892) - Clarified the limits of the executive's involvement in disqualification processes, emphasizing the finality of the Governor's decisions.
• Union of India v. Jyoti Parkash (AIR 1971 SC 1093) - Reiterated that even when the President's decisions are labeled "final," they remain subject to judicial review under specific circumstances.
• Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458) - Demonstrated that not all constitutional amendments affecting certain articles require ratification, especially when the impact on other articles is incidental.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845) - Affirmed that amendments aiming to curtail fundamental rights to achieve socio-economic objectives do not necessarily require prior ratification if their impact on judicial powers is indirect.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was anchored in the basic structure doctrine. It discerned that while Parliament holds substantial power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute and cannot dismantle the Constitution's core principles.

- **Paragraph 6 of Tenth Schedule**: The court held that this provision did not infringe upon the High Court's or the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It interpreted that the Speaker's decisions under this clause remained subject to judicial scrutiny, aligning with the principle that finality in legislative decisions does not exclude judicial oversight.

- **Paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule**: This provision sought to bar courts from intervening in disqualification matters. The court found that since this paragraph indirectly affected Articles 226 and 136, which empower courts with review and appellate jurisdiction, it required ratification under Article 368's proviso. The absence of such ratification rendered paragraph 7 unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight to preserve democratic integrity and prevent legislative overreach.

3.3 Impact

The judgment had profound implications for India's political landscape:

• Affirmation of Anti-Defection Law: By upholding most of the Fifty-Second Amendment, the judgment reinforced mechanisms to curb political defections, ensuring greater stability in legislatures.
• Judicial Oversight Maintained: The invalidation of paragraph 7 upholds the judiciary's role in reviewing legislative actions, preventing unchecked legislative authority.
• Political Party Discipline Strengthened: Political parties gained enhanced tools to maintain internal discipline, discouraging members from switching allegiances for personal gain.
• Constitutional Safeguards Reinforced: The judgment underscored the Constitution's resilience, ensuring that its foundational principles remain inviolate despite legislative attempts to modify them.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Basic Structure Doctrine

The basic structure doctrine posits that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, and the separation of powers, form its core framework. No constitutional amendment can alter this framework, ensuring the protection of these enduring principles against legislative overreach.

4.2 Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

The Tenth Schedule was introduced to address political defections by elected legislators. It stipulates conditions under which a member may be disqualified for changing parties or not adhering to party directives in legislative voting. The schedule aims to promote stability and prevent factionalism within political parties.

4.3 Article 368 and the Proviso

Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, the proviso to this article specifies that any amendment affecting certain entrenched provisions requires ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. This prevents unilateral changes to critical constitutional features.

4.4 Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the judiciary's authority to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. Articles 226 and 136 empower the High Courts and the Supreme Court, respectively, to review and, if necessary, overturn decisions that contravene the Constitution.

4.5 Paragraph 6 vs. Paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule

- **Paragraph 6**: Assigns the Speaker of the House the authority to decide on a member's disqualification, with the decision being deemed "final." However, the court interpreted that this does not exclude judicial review, maintaining the balance between legislative decisions and judicial oversight.

- **Paragraph 7**: Attempts to categorically exclude courts from intervening in disqualification matters. The court found this provision problematic as it indirectly affected Articles 226 and 136, lacking the requisite ratification, and thus declared it unconstitutional.

5. Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment in Parkash Singh Badal And Others v. Union Of India And Others serves as a pivotal precedent in the realm of constitutional law in India. By invalidating paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule due to unratified alterations to Articles 226 and 136, the court underscored the inviolability of the Constitution's foundational principles. This decision not only preserved the integrity of judicial review but also affirmed the necessity of maintaining a harmonious balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight.

Moreover, the judgment reinforced the Anti-Defection Law's role in ensuring political stability, thereby contributing to a more resilient democratic framework. As such, this case remains a cornerstone in understanding the interplay between constitutional amendments, legislative power, and the judiciary's role in safeguarding democracy in India.