Committed bureaucracy and judiciary

The essentials

After 1971 the Congress government had a large majority, but its relations with the judiciary became tense. The central question was whether Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights such as the right to property, to carry out its social and economic policies.

In the Golaknath case (1967) the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. Parliament then passed amendments asserting its power to amend any part of the Constitution. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but could not change its basic structure.

Key points

• In April 1973, soon after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the government appointed Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice of India, setting aside the convention of appointing the senior-most judge. Three judges senior to him had ruled against the government's position in the case.
• The decision was criticised as an attempt to influence the judiciary. Supporters of the government argued that judges should be in tune with the social philosophy of the elected government.
• The terms “committed judiciary” and “committed bureaucracy” were used in these debates. They referred to the idea that judges and civil servants should be committed to the policies of the ruling party, rather than being independent and neutral.
• Critics argued that this idea threatened the separation of powers and the neutrality of the civil service.
• A similar supersession happened in early 1977, when a judge who had given a dissenting opinion in a key Emergency-era case was passed over for the post of Chief Justice.

Exam tips

• Remember the order of the cases: Golaknath (1967), then Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
• Be ready to explain what “basic structure” means and why the supersession of judges was controversial.

Common mistakes

• Thinking Kesavananda Bharati said Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all; it allowed amendment but protected the basic structure.
• Treating “committed bureaucracy” as a term for an efficient bureaucracy.