Important Supreme Court (India) Judgments On Arbitration Passed In 2020

  The Supreme Court of India has pronounced numerous judgments in the matters related to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in the year 2020. In this write-up, the important pronouncements are briefly discussed.

• State of Gujarat (through Chief Secretary) and Another v. Amber Builders, Civil Appeal No. 8307 of 2019 (Decided on 08/01/2020). 

THE GUJARAT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT DISPUTES ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL HAS THE POWER TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF IN CASES OF STATUTORY ARBITRATIONS UNDER THE GUJARAT ACT, 1992.

A Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that on a conjoint reading and a careful analysis of the Arbitration Act and the Gujarat Act, the powers vested in the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, can be exercised by the Tribunal constituted under the Gujarat Act because there is no inconsistency in these two Acts as far as the grant of interim relief is concerned. This power is already vested in the Tribunal under the Gujarat Act and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act complements these powers and therefore it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are inconsistent with the Gujarat Act.

• Vijay Karia & Ors. v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2020 (Decided on 13/02/2020).

MINIMAL INTERFERENCE BY COURTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT IN ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN AWARDS.

A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian held that that the Appellants are indulging in a speculative litigation with the fond hope that by flinging mud on a foreign arbitral award, some of the mud so flung would stick. All the pleas taken by the Appellants are, in reality, pleas going to the unfairness of the conclusions reached by the award, which is plainly a foray into the merits of the matter, and which is plainly proscribed by Section 48 of the Arbitration Act read with the New York Convention. The Bench held that a good working test for determining whether a party has been unable to present his case is to see whether factors outside the party's control have combined to deny the party a fair hearing. Where no opportunity was given to deal with an argument which goes to the root of the case or findings based on evidence which go behind the back of the party and which results in a denial of justice to the prejudice of the party or additional or new evidence is taken which forms the basis of the award on which a party has been given no opportunity of rebuttal would on the facts of a given case, render a foreign award liable to be set aside on the ground that a party has been unable to present his case. This must be with the caveat that such breach be clearly made out on the facts of a given case, and that awards must always be read supportively with an inclination to uphold rather than destroy, given the minimal interference possible with foreign awards under Section 48.

• Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Other Charities and Others v. Bhaskar Raju & Brothers and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1599 of 2020 (Decided on 14/02/2020).

THE COURT CANNOT ACT UPON A DOCUMENT OR THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STAMPED.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices B.R Gavai and Surya Kant held that when a lease deed or any other instrument is relied upon as containing the arbitration agreement, the Court is required to consider at the outset, whether the document is properly stamped or not. If the instrument is not properly stamped, it should be impounded and dealt with, in the manner specified in Section 38 of the Stamp Act, 1899. It has also been held, that the Court cannot act upon such a document or the arbitration clause therein.

• Mankastu Impex Private Limited v. Airvisual Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 32 of 2018 (Decided on 05/03/2020).

MERE EXPRESSION "PLACE OF ARBITRATION" CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO DETERMINE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES THAT THEY HAVE INTENDED THAT PLACE AS THE "SEAT" OF ARBITRATION.

A Bench of Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy held that the seat of arbitration is a vital aspect of any arbitration proceedings and its location will determine the courts that will have exclusive jurisdiction to oversee the arbitration proceedings. It was further held that the Seat normally carries with it the choice of that country's arbitration/curial law and it is well-settled that "seat of arbitration" and "venue of arbitration" cannot be used inter-changeably. Mere expression "place of arbitration" cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the "seat" of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the "seat" should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties.

• National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. ALIMENTA S.A., Civil Appeal No. 667 of 2012 (Decided on 22/04/2020).

FOREIGN AWARD AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY NOT ENFORCEABLE IN INDIA.

A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai held that the award in the present case could not be said to be enforceable, given the provisions contained in Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards Act. As per the test laid down in the Renusagar case, its enforcement would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law and the basic concept of justice. The award is unenforceable, and the High Court erred in law in holding otherwise in a perfunctory manner. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by the NAFED and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

• Firm Rajasthan Udyog & Ors. v. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2376 of 2020 (Decided on 24/04/2020).

ARBITRATION AWARD FIXING PRICE OF LAND CAN'T BE EXECUTED LIKE A DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF SALE AGREEMENT.

A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran held that the award in the present case did not relate to right, title or interest in an immovable property and was only for determination of the price of land, yet if the execution court was to treat the same for execution of sale deed of land (immovable property), it ought to have considered the impact of non­registration of such Award, which has not been done in the present case. The Bench also held that execution of an award can be only to the extent what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same. In the present case, the Arbitrator in its Award had only declared the price of land and nothing more. The question of execution of a sale deed of the land at the price so declared by the Arbitrator in its Award, could not be directed.

• Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd v. Janardan Nirman Pvt Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2378/2020 (Decided on 29/04/2020).

NON-PARTICIPATION IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS RESULTS IN WAIVER OF RIGHT TO RAISE OBJECTIONS ON JURISDICTION AFTER AWARD.

A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran held that the respondent failed to participate in the proceedings before the Arbitrator and did not raise any submission that the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction or that he was exceeding the scope of his authority, the respondent must be deemed to have waived all such objections. In the circumstances, the respondent is precluded from raising any submission or objection as to the venue of arbitration, the conclusion drawn by the Court at Alipore while dismissing the case was quite correct and did not call for any interference. The Bench held that a party who knows that any provision from which the parties may derogate or any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to such non-compliance without undue delay or if a time limit is provided for stating that objection, within that period of time, shall be deemed to have waived his right to so object.

• South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd. v. Oil India Limited, Civil Appeal No. 673 of 2012 (Decided on 11/05/2020).

USUALLY, COURT NOT REQUIRED TO EXAMINE MERITS OF INTERPRETATION PROVIDED IN AWARD BY ARBITRATOR IF SUCH INTERPRETATION WAS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.

A Bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi held that usually the Court is not required to examine the merits of the interpretation provided in the award by the arbitrator, if it comes to a conclusion that such an interpretation was reasonably possible. The Bench further held that we do not subscribe to either the reasons provided by the Arbitral Tribunal or the High Court. Although, the Arbitral Tribunal correctly held that a contract needs to be interpreted taking into consideration all the clauses of the contract, it failed to apply the same standard while interpreting a Clause of the Contract. It is a settled position that a Court can set aside the award only on the grounds as provided in the Arbitration Act and where two views are possible, the Court cannot interfere in the plausible view taken by the arbitrator supported by reasoning.

• Patel Engineering Ltd. v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3584-85 of 2020 (Decided on 22/05/2020).

PATENT ILLEGALITY A GROUND AVAILABLE TO SET ASIDE DOMESTIC ARBITRAL AWARDS MADE AFTER 2015 AMENDMENT.

A Bench of Justices R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose held that an arbitral award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if it is patently illegal or perverse. The ground of patent illegality is a ground available under the statute for setting aside a domestic award made after the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Bench held that an award can be termed as patently illegal if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse, or, so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same; or, the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take; or, that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view

• M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2006 (Decided on 02/06/2020).

SUPREME COURT PAVED A WAY FOR THE EXECUTION OF A FOREIGN AWARD EMANATING FROM A TWO-TIER ARBITRATION MECHANISM.

A Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian paved the way for the execution of a Foreign Arbitral Award in India arising out of a two-tier arbitration mechanism. The Bench gave a go-ahead for the execution of ICC Foreign Award passed in favour of Centrotrade. The matter related to the agreement between Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc, an American giant, and Hindustan Copper Limited, a Government of India enterprises, for the supply of Copper Concentrate. The arbitration clause in the agreement provided for a two-tier arbitration mechanism whereby any dispute was to be settled by a Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA).

• Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020 (Decided on 16/09/2020).

ENFORCEMENT OF AN ARBITRAL AWARD MAY BE REFUSED ONLY IF IT VIOLATES THE ENFORCEMENT STATE'S MOST BASIC NOTIONS OF MORALITY AND JUSTICE.

A Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra and Aniruddha Bose, held that enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused only if it violates the enforcement State's most basic notions of morality and justice, which has been interpreted to mean that there should be great hesitation in refusing enforcement, unless it is obtained through corruption or fraud, or undue means. It was observed that the enforcement court would examine the challenge to the award in accordance with the law and merely because the Malaysian Courts have upheld the award, it would not be an impediment for the Indian courts to examine whether the award was opposed to the public policy of India under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996. The enforcement court would not review the correctness of the judgment of the Seat Courts, while deciding the challenge to the award and the period of limitation for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. The power to set aside a foreign award vests only with the court at the seat of arbitration, since the supervisory or primary jurisdiction is exercised by the curial courts at the seat of arbitration. The enforcement court may refuse enforcement of a foreign award, if the conditions contained in Section 48 are made out.

• Noy Vallesina Engineering SpA v. Jindal Drugs Limited, Civil Appeal No. 8607 of 2010 (Decided on 26/11/2020).

PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT NOT MAINTAINABLE AGAINST PRE-BALCO FOREIGN AWARDS.

A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat held that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are not maintainable to challenge a pre-BALCO foreign award. The Bench held that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would have no application to international commercial arbitration held outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996 make it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Having regard to the precedential unanimity, about the manner of applicability of BALCO in respect of agreements entered into and awards rendered earlier, with respect to the law of the seat of arbitration (or the curial law) excluding applicability of Part I of the Act, and the unambiguous intention of the parties, that the seat of arbitration was London, where the ICC arbitration proceedings were in fact held, and the awards rendered, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

• Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology India Private Limited, Arbitration Petition (Civil) No(s). 08/2020 (Decided on 18/12/2020).

THE LEASE/TENANCY MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT GOVERNED UNDER THE SPECIAL STATUTES BUT UNDER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ARE ARBITRABLE.

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian held that if the special statutes do not apply to the premises/property and the lease/tenancy created as on the date when the cause of action arises to seek for eviction or such other relief and in such transaction if the parties are governed by an Arbitration Clause; the dispute between the parties is arbitrable and there shall be no impediment whatsoever to invoke the Arbitration Clause. The Bench also held that eviction or tenancy relating to matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction whereunder the Court/Forum is specified and conferred jurisdiction under the statute alone can adjudicate such matters and in such cases the dispute is non­arbitrable.

:: Courtesy Livelaw.in

Constitutional Bench Judgements of 2020 (INDIA)

 1. Protection under anticipatory bail should not be fixed for limited period

Case: Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 5 SCC 1]

2. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to extend time beyond 45 days for opposite party’s version

Case: New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]

3. Land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act of 1894 will not lapse if compensation is tendered in the State treasury

Case: Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 316]

4. Accused under NDPS Act not entitled to acquittal merely because informant was investigation officer

Case: Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [2020 SCC OnLine SC 700]

5. States, not MCI, have power to make reservation for in-service PG candidates in NEET courses

Case: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 699]

6. SARFAESI Act will apply to co-operative Banks as it does to commercial banks

Case: Pandurang Ganpati v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd [2020 SCC OnLine SC 431]

7. Government order providing 100% reservation for tribal teachers in Scheduled Areas unconstitutional

Case: Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v.State of AP & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 383]

8. Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes: 5-judge Bench refers EV Chinnaiah to larger bench on whether Scheduled Castes form a homogenous class

Case: State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 677]

9. Curative petition and stay on execution of 2012 Delhi gang rape convict dismissed

Case: Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 SCC OnLine SC 264]

10. Rights conferred on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 are not absolute, State can impose reasonable restrictions

Case: Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 423]

11. Constitutional validity of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 upheld

Case: Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 4 SCC 727]

12. Under Article 233, judicial officers can’t be appointed as District Judges through direct quota reserved for advocates

Case: Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [2020 SCC OnLine 213]

13. Daughters become equal coparceners at birth even if born prior to 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession Act

Case: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 641]

14. Prashant Bhushan held guilty for contempt of court for tweets against CJI SA Bobde

Case: In re Prashant Bhushan & Anr [2020 SCC OnLine SC 698]

FARM BILL 2020

In 2017, the central government had released model farming acts. The Standing Committee on Agriculture (2018-19), however, noted that a number of reforms suggested in the model acts had not been implemented by the states. In particular, the Committee found that the laws that regulated Indian agricultural markets (such as those related to Agricultural Produce Market Committees or APMCs) were not being implemented fairly and honestly or serving their purpose. Centralisation was thought to be reducing competition and (accordingly) participation, with undue commissions, market fees, and monopoly of associations damaging the agricultural sector.

There are three Acts introduced under Farm Bill 2020

The three acts include:

1. Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
   • expands the scope of trade areas of farmers' produce from select areas to "any place of production, collection, aggregation".
   • allows electronic trading and e-commerce of scheduled farmers' produce.
   • prohibits state governments from levying any market fee, cess or levy on farmers, traders, and electronic trading platforms for trade of farmers' produce conducted in an 'outside trade area'.
2. Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
   • provides a legal framework for farmers to enter into pre-arranged contracts with buyers including mention of pricing.
   • defines a dispute resolution mechanism.
3. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020
   • removes foodstuff such as cereals, pulses, potato, onions, edible oilseeds and oils, from the list of essential commodities, removing stockholding limits on such items except under "extraordinary circumstances"
   • requires that imposition of any stock limit on agricultural produce be based on price rise

Preamble to the Constitution of India

 

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: 

JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; 

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; 

and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION

================================================================

The Preamble to the Constitution of India is a brief introductory statement that sets out guidelines, which guide the people of the nation, and to present the principles of the Constitution, and to indicate the source from which the document derives its authority, and meaning. It reflects the hopes and aspirations of the people. The preamble can be referred to as the preface which highlights the entire Constitution. It was adopted on 26 November 1949 by the Constituent Assembly and came into effect on 26 January 1950, celebrated as the Republic day in India. Preamble was made in 1947 but adopted in 1949.

The preamble-page, along with other pages of the original Constitution of India, was designed and decorated by the renowned painter Beohar Rammanohar Sinha of Jabalpur who was at Shantiniketan with Acharya Nandalal Bose at that time. Nandalal Bose endorsed Beohar Rammanohar Sinha's artwork without any alteration whatsoever. As such, the page bears Beohar Rammanohar Sinha's short signature Ram in Devanagari lower-right corner. The calligraphy was done by Prem Behari Narain Raizada.

The preamble was amended only once on 18 December 1976, with most of the opposition being jailed during the Emergency in India, the Indira Gandhi government pushed through several changes in the Forty-second Amendment of the constitution. Through this amendment, the words "socialist" and "secular" were added between the words "Sovereign" and "democratic" and the words "unity of the Nation" were changed to "unity and integrity of the Nation".The American Constitution was the first to begin with a Preamble. Both the American and the Indian Preamble begins with WE, THE PEOPLE

Complete List of Constitutional Amendments in India till 2019

 

First constitutional Amendment Act: 1951

• Added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reform and other laws included in it from the judicial review.
• Added three more grounds of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression, viz., public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to an offence. Also, made the restrictions ‘reasonable’ and thus, justiciable in nature.
• Empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes

Second constitutional amendment act: 1952

• Readjusted the scale of representation in the Lok Sabha by providing that one member could represent even more than 7,50,000 persons.

Third constitutional amendment act: 1954

• Empowered the Parliament to control the production, supply and distribution of the foodstuffs, cattle
• fodder, raw cotton, cotton seed and raw jute in the public interest

Fourth constitutional amendment act: 1955

• Made the scale of compensation given in lieu of compulsory acquisition of private property beyond the scrutiny of courts.

Fifth Amendment Act, 1955

•  Empowered the president to fix the time-limit for the state legislatures to express their views on the proposed Central legislation affecting the areas, boundaries and names of the states

Sixth Amendment Act, 1956

• Included a new subject in the Union list i.e., taxes on the sale and purchase of goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and restricted the state’s power in this regard

Seventh constitutional Amendment Act-1956

• This constitutional amendment act was brought to give effect to recommendations of state reorganisation commission
• Provided for the establishment of a common high court for two or more states.
• Abolished the existing classification of states into four categories i.e., Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D states, and reorganised them into 14 states and 6 union territories
• Extended the jurisdiction of high courts to union territories.
• Provided for the appointment of additional and acting judges of the high court

Eight Amendment Act, 1960

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs, and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a period of ten years (i.e., up to 1970).

Ninth Amendment Act, 1960

• Facilitated the cession of Indian territory of Berubari Union (located in West Bengal) to Pakistan as provided in the Indo-Pakistan Agreement (1958).

Tenth constitutional Amendment Act-1961

• Incorporated Dadra and Nagar Haveli in the Indian Union

Eleventh Amendment Act, 1961

• Changed the procedure of election of the vice-president by providing for an electoral college instead of a joint meeting of the two Houses of Parliament.
• Provided that the election of the president or vice-president cannot be challenged on the ground of any vacancy in the appropriate electoral college.

Twelfth constitutional Amendment Act-1962

• Incorporated Goa, Daman and Diu in the Indian Union.

Thirteenth Amendment Act, 1962

• Gave the status of a state to Nagaland and made special provisions for it.

Fourteenth constitutional Amendment Act-1962

• Incorporated Puducherry in the Indian Union

Fifteenth constitutional Amendment Act-1963

• Increased the retirement age of high court judges from 60 to 62 years

Sixteenth Amendment Act, 1963

• Included sovereignty and integrity in the forms of oaths or affirmations to be subscribed by contestants to the legislatures, members of the legislatures, ministers, judges and CAG of India.

Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964

• Prohibited the acquisition of land under personal cultivation unless the market value of the land is paid as compensation.

Eighteenth Amendment Act, 1966

• Made it clear that the power of Parliament to form a new state also includes a power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of a state or a union territory to another state or union territory.

Nineteenth Amendment Act, 1966

• Abolished the system of Election Tribunals and vested the power to hear election

Twentieth Amendment Act, 1966

• Validated certain appointments of district judges in the UP which were declared void by the Supreme Court.

Twenty-First Amendment Act, 1967

• Included sindhi as the 15th language in the Eight Schedule.

Twenty-Second Amendment Act, 1969

• Facilitated the creation of a new autonomous State of Meghalaya within the State of Assam.

Twenty-Third Amendment Act, 1969

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs, and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a further period of ten years (i.e., up to 1980).

Twenty-Fourth constitutional AmendmentAct-1971

• Affirmed the power of Parliament to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights.
• Made it compulsory for the president to give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill.

Twenty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1971

• Curtailed the fundamental right to property.
•  Provided that any law made to give effect to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (b) or (c) cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1971

• Abolished the privy purses and privileges of the former rulers of princely states.

Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 1971

• Empowered the administrators of certain union territories to promulgate ordinances.

Twenty-Eighth Amendment Act, 1972

• Abolished the special privileges of ICS officers and empowered the Parliament to determine their service conditions.
• Twenty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1972
• Included two Kerala Acts on land reforms in the Ninth Schedule.

Thirtieth Amendment Act, 1972

• Did away with the provision which allowed appeal to the Supreme Court in civil cases involving an amount of `20,000, and provided instead that an appeal can be filed in the Supreme Court only if the case involves a substantial question of law.

Thirty-First Amendment Act, 1972

• Increased the number of Lok Sabha seats from 525 to 545.

Thirty-Second constitutional Amendment Act-1973

• Made special provisions to satisfy the aspirations of the people of the Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh.

Thirty-Third Amendment Act, 1974

• Provided that the resignation of the members of Parliament and the state legislatures may be accepted by the Speaker/Chairman only if he is satisfied that the resignation is voluntary or genuine.

Thirty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1974

• Included twenty more land tenure and land reforms acts of various states in the Ninth Schedule.

Thirty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1974

• Terminated the protectorate status of Sikkim and conferred on it the status of an associate state of the Indian Union. The Tenth Schedule was added laying down the terms and conditions of association of Sikkim with the Indian Union.

Thirty-Sixth constitutional Amendment Act-1975

• Made Sikkim a full-fledged State of the Indian Union and omitted the Tenth Schedule.

Thirty-Seventh Amendment Act, 1975

• Provided legislative assembly and council of ministers for the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh.

Thirty-Eighth Amendment Act, 1975

• Empowered the president to declare different proclamations of national emergency on different grounds simultaneously.

Thirty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1975

• Placed the disputes relating to the president, vice-president, prime minister and Speaker beyond the scope of the judiciary. They are to be decided by such authority as may be determined by the Parliament.

Fortieth Amendment Act, 1976

• Empowered the Parliament to specify from time to time the limits of the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the maritime zones of India.

Forty-First Amendment Act, 1976

• Raised the retirement age of members of State Public Service Commission and Joint Public Service Commission from 60 to 62.

Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976

• It is also known as Mini-Constitution. It was enacted to give effect to the recommendations of Swaran Singh Committee.)
• Added three new words (i.e., socialist, secular and integrity) in the Preamble.
• Added Fundamental Duties by the citizens (new Part IV A).
• Made the president bound by the advice of the cabinet
• Added three new Directive Principles viz., equal justice and free legal aid, participation of workers in the management of industries
• Shifted five subjects from the state list to the concurrent list, viz, education, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, weights and measures and administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the high courts
• Empowered the Centre to deploy its armed forces in any state to deal with a grave situation of law and order.

Forty-Third Amendment Act, 1977

• Restored the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the high courts in respect of judicial review and issue of writs

Forty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1978

• Empowered the president to send back once the advice of cabinet for reconsideration. But, the reconsidered advice is to be binding on the president
• Replaced the term ‘internal disturbance’ by ‘armed rebellion’ in respect of national emergency.
• Made the President to declare a national emergency only on the written recommendation of the cabinet.
• Deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and made it only a legal right.

Forty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1980

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a further period of ten years (i.e., up to 1990).

Forty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1982

• Enabled the states to plug loopholes in the laws and realise sales tax dues.

Forty-Seventh Amendment Act, 1984

• Included 14 land reforms Acts of various states in the Ninth Schedule.

Forty-Eighth Amendment Act, 1984

• Facilitated the extension of President’s rule in Punjab beyond one year without meeting the two special conditions for such extension.

Forty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1984

• Gave a constitutional sanctity to the Autonomous District Council in Tripura.

Fiftieth Amendment Act, 1984

• Empowered the Parliament to restrict the Fundamental Rights of persons employed in intelligence organisations and telecommunication systems set up for the armed forces or intelligence organisations.

Fifty-First Amendment Act, 1984

• Provided for reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha for STs in Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram as well as in the Legislative Assemblies of Meghalaya and Nagaland

Fifty-Second Amendment Act, 1985

• This amendment popularly known as Anti-Defection Law
• Provided for disqualification of members of Parliament and state legislatures on the ground of defection and added a new Tenth Schedule containing the details in this regard.

Fifty-Third Amendment Act, 1986

• Made special provisions in respect of Mizoram and fixed the strength of its Assembly at a minimum of 40 members

Fifty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1986

• Increased the salaries of the Supreme Court and high court judges and enabled the Parliament to change them in future by an ordinary law.

Fifty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1986

• Made special provisions in respect of Arunachal Pradesh and fixed the strength of its Assembly at a minimum of 30 members.

Fifty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1987

• Fixed the strength of the Goa Legislative Assembly at a minimum of 30 members.

Fifty-Seventh Amendment Act, 1987

• Reserved seats for the STs in the legislative assemblies of the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland.

Fifty-Eighth Amendment Act, 1987

• Provided for an authoritative text of the Constitution in Hindi language and gave the same legal sanctity to the Hindi version of the Constitution.

Fifty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1988

•  Provided for the declaration of national emergency in Punjab on the ground of internal disturbance.

Sixtieth Amendment Act, 1988

• Increased the ceiling of taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments from Rs 250 per annum to Rs 2,500 per annum

Sixty-First Amendment Act, 1989

• Reduced the voting age from 21 years to 18 years for the Lok Sabha and state legislative assembly elections.

Sixty-Second Amendment Act, 1989

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for the further period of ten years (i.e., up to 2000).

Sixty-Third Amendment Act, 1989

• Repealed the changes introduced by the 59th Amendment Act of 1988 in relation to Punjab. In other words, Punjab was brought at par with the other states in respect of emergency provisions.

Sixty-Fourth Amendment Act, 1990

• Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in Punjab upto a total period of three years and six months

Sixty-Fifth Amendment Act, 1990

• Provided for the establishment of a multi-member National Commission for SCs and STs in the place of a Special Officer for SCs and STs.

Sixty-Sixth Amendment Act, 1990

• Included 55 more land reforms Acts of various states in the Ninth Schedule.

Sixty-Seventh Amendment Act, 1990

• Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in Punjab up to a total period of four years.

Sixty-Eight Amendment Act, 1991

• Facilitated the extension of the President’s rule in Punjab up to a total period of five years

Sixty-Ninth Amendment Act, 1991

• Accorded a special status to the Union Territory of Delhi by designing it as the National Capital Territory of Delhi. 

Seventieth Amendment Act, 1992

Provided for the inclusion of the members of the Legislative Assemblies of National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory of Puducherry in the Electoral College for the election of the president.

Seventy-First Amendment Act, 1992

• Included Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali languages in the Eight Schedule. With this, the total number of scheduled languages increased to 18.

Seventy-Second Amendment Act, 1992

• Provided for reservation of seats for the STs in the Legislative Assembly of Tripura

Seventy-Third Amendment Act, 1992

• Granted constitutional status and protection to the panchayati raj institutions.
• For this purpose, the Amendment has added a new Part-IX entitled as ‘the panchayats’ and a new Eleventh Schedule containing 29 functional items of the panchayats

Seventy-Fourth Amendment Act, 1992

• Granted constitutional status and protection to the urban local bodies. 
• For this purpose, the Amendment has added a new Part IX-A entitled as ‘the municipalities’ and a new Twelfth Schedule containing 18 functional items of the municipalities

Seventy-Fifth Amendment Act, 1994

• Provided for the establishment of rent tribunals for the adjudication of disputes with respect to rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants

Seventy-Fifth Amendment Act, 1994

• Provided for the establishment of rent tribunals for the adjudication of disputes with respect to rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants

Seventy-Sixth Amendment Act, 1994

• Included the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act of 1994 (which provides for 69 per cent reservation of seats in educational institutions and posts in state services) in the Ninth Schedule to protect it from judicial review. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the total reservation should not exceed 50 percent.

Seventy-Seventh Amendment Act, 1995

• Provided for reservation in promotions in government jobs for SCs and STs. This amendment nullified the Supreme Court ruling with regard to reservation in promotions.

Seventy-Eighth Amendment Act, 1995

• Included 27 more land reforms Acts of various states in the Ninth Schedule. With this, the total number of Acts in the Schedule increased to 282. But, the last entry is numbered 284.

Seventy-Ninth Amendment, 1999

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a further period of ten years (i.e., up to 2010).

Eightieth Amendment Act, 2000

• Provided for an ‘alternative scheme of devolution’ of revenue between the Centre and states. This was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of the Tenth Finance Commission which has recommended that out of the total income obtained from Central taxes and duties, twenty-nine per cent should be distributed among the states.

Eighty-First Amendment Act, 2000

• Empowered the state to consider the unfilled reserved vacancies of a year as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years. Such class of vacancies are not to be combined with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up to determine the ceiling of 50 per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year. In brief, this amendment ended the 50 per cent ceiling on reservation in backlog vacancies.

Eighty-Second Amendment Act, 2000

• Provided for making of any provision in favour of the SCs and STs for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to the public services of the Centre and the states.

Eighty-Third Amendment Act, 2000

Provided that no reservation in panchayats need be made for SCs in Arunachal Pradesh. The total population of the state is tribal and there are no SCs.

Eighty-Fourth Amendment Act, 2001

• Extended the ban on readjustment of seats in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for another 25 years (i.e., up to 2026) with the same objective of encouraging population limiting measures.
• In other words, the number of seats in the Lok Sabha and the assemblies are to remain same till 2026. 
• It also provided for the readjustment and rationalisation of territorial constituencies in the states on the basis of the population figures of 1991 census

Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001

• Provided for ‘consequential seniority’ in the case of promotion by virtue of rule of reservation for the government servants belonging to the SCs and STs with retrospective effect from June 1995.

Eighty-Sixth Amendment Act, 2002

• Made elementary education a fundamental right. The newly-added Article 21-A declares that “the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may determine”.
• Changed the subject matter of Article 45 in Directive Principles. It now reads—“The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years”.
• Added a new fundamental duty under Article 51-A which reads—“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the age of six and fourteen years”.

Eighty-Seventh Amendment Act, 2003

• Provided for the readjustment and rationalisation of territorial constituencies in the states on the basis of the population figures of 2001 census and not 1991 census as provided earlier by the 84th Amendment Act of 2001.

Eighty-Eighth Amendment Act, 2003

• Made a provision for service tax (Article 268-A). Taxes on services are levied by the Centre. But, their proceeds are collected as well as appropriated by both the Centre and the states in accordance with the principles formulated by parliament

Eighty-Ninth Amendment Act, 2003

• Bifurcated the erstwhile combined National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes into two separate bodies, namely, National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Article 338) and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (Article 338-A). Both the Commissions consist of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and three other members. They are appointed by the President.

Ninetieth Amendment Act, 2003

• Provided for maintaining the erstwhile representation of the Scheduled Tribes and non- Scheduled Tribes in the Assam legislative assembly from the Bodoland Territorial Areas District (Article 332 (6)).

Ninety-First Amendment Act, 2003

• The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Central Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha (Article 75(1A)).
• The total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a state shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the legislative Assembly of that state. But, the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a state shall not be less than 12 (Article 164(1A)).
• The provision of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) pertaining to exemption from disqualification in case of split by one-third members of legislature party has been deleted. It means that the defectors have no more protection on grounds of splits.

Ninety-Second Amendment Act, 2003

• Included four more languages in the Eighth Schedule. They are Bodo, Dogri (Dongri), Maithili (Maithili) and Santhali. With this, the total number of constitutionally recognised languages increased to 22

Ninety-Third Amendment Act, 2005

• Empowered the state to make special provisions for the socially and educationally backward classes or the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions including private educational institutions (whether aided or unaided by the state), except the minority educational institutions (clause (5) in Article 15). This Amendment was enacted to nullify the Supreme Court judgement in the Inamdar case (2005) where the apex court ruled that the state cannot impose its reservation policy on minority and non-minority unaided private colleges, including professional colleges. The court declared that reservation in private, unaided educational institutions was unconstitutional.

Ninety-Fourth Amendment Act, 2006

Freed Bihar from the obligation of having a tribal welfare minister and extended the same provision to Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. This provision will now be applicable to the two newly formed states and Madhya Pradesh and Orissa,  where it has already been in force (Article 164(1)).

Ninety-Fifth Amendment Act, 2009

• Extended the reservation of seats for the SCs and STs and special representation for the Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies for a further period of ten years i.e., upto 2020 (Article 334).

Ninety-Sixth Amendment Act, 2011

• Substituted “Odia” for “Oriya”. Consequently, the “Oriya” language in the Eighth Schedule shall be pronounced as “Odia”

Ninety-Seventh Amendment Act, 2011

• Gave a constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies. In this context, it made the following three changes in the constitution:
• It made the right to form co-operative societies a fundamental right (Article 19)
• It included a new Directive Principle of State Policy on the promotion of co-operative societies (Article 43-B).
• It added a new Part IX-B in the constitution which is entitled as “The Co-operative societies” (Articles 243-ZH to 243-ZT).

Ninety-Eight constitutional amendment act, 2013:

• To empower the Governor of Karnataka to take steps to develop the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region

Ninety-Ninth constitutional amendment act, 2014:

• It provided for establishment of National judicial commission

Hundredth constitutional amendment Act 2015:

• This amendment is Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh

101st Constitutional amendment act, 2016

• Goods and Services Tax (GST) has commenced with the enactment of the 101st Constitution Amendment Act, 2016 on 8th September, 2016 and the subsequent notifications.
• Articles 246A, 269A and 279A were added in the constitution. The amendment made changes in the 7th schedule of the constitution. The entry 84 of Union List earlier comprised duties on tobacco, alcoholic liquors, opium, Indian hemp, narcotic drugs and narcotics, medical and toilet preparations. After amendment, it will comprise Petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (petrol), natural gas, and aviation turbine fuel, tobacco and tobacco products. Entry 92 (newspapers and on advertisements published therein) has been deleted, they are now under GST. Entry 92-C (Service Tax) has now been deleted from union list. Under State list, entry 52 (entry tax for sale in state) has also been deleted. Entry 54, Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of Entry 92-A of List I has now been replaced by Taxes on the sale of petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit (petrol), natural gas, aviation turbine fuel and alcoholic liquor for human consumption, but not including sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or sale in the course of international trade or commerce of such goods. Entry 55 (advertisement taxes) have been deleted. Entry 62 (Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling) has now replaced by these taxes only to be levied by local governments ( panchayats, municipality, regional council or district council).

The Constitution (ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND AMENDMENT) Act, 2018

• The bill seeks to give constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes. It seeks to insert new article 338B in the constitution which provides for NCBC, its mandate, composition, functions and various officers. Inserted a new article 342-A which empowers president to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes of that state/union territory.

The Constitution (ONE HUNDRED AND THIRD AMENDMENT) Act, 2019

• It changed two fundamental rights, Article 15 and 16. It provides for the advancement of the economically weaker sections of society. A big 10% of all government jobs and college seats will now have a reservation for people outside the high-income bracket. It states that bill is drafted with a will to mandate Article 46 of the Constitution of India, a Directive Principle that urges the government to protect the educational and the economic interests of the weaker sections of society.

104th Amendment

• The Indian constitution provided reservation to SC and ST representatives in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. This reservation was provided for 70 years. It has been extended to 80 years till 25 January 2030. Anglo-Indian reservation has been removed.