by Aishwarya Birla, NLSIU
Introduction
As the Supreme Court of India marked its 75th anniversary this year and journeys into its 76th year, it is fitting to examine how constitutional history continues to shape and inform contemporary jurisprudence. The Court, which replaced the colonial Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1950, has consistently demonstrated the relevance of historical context in constitutional interpretation. This article analyzes three landmark judgments from 2024 that significantly relied on constitutional history to address complex legal questions concerning citizenship, parliamentary privileges, and affirmative action. These landmark judgments of 2024 demonstrate the Supreme Court’s commitment to grounding contemporary constitutional interpretation in historical context, anapproach which continues to provide crucial insights for addressing modern constitutional challenges. .
The Citizenship Question: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955
The Supreme Court’s examination of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Section 6A of the Citizenship Act represented a crucial intersection of constitutional history and contemporary challenges. The case, decided in October 2024, centered on the validity of provisions affecting citizenship in Assam, particularly concerning immigrants from Bangladesh after March 24, 1971.
The constitutional bench’s 4:1 majority judgment upholding Section 6A’s constitutionality demonstrated the enduring relevance of the Constituent Assembly’s deliberations on citizenship. The Court emphasized the historical context’s significance, noting that citizenship questions in India are inextricably linked to Partition history. As the majority opinion observed:
“Prior to examining the contentions articulated by the parties on the constitutionality of the provision and engaging in a discussion on the various legal issues involved, it is imperative to trace the history of this matter and have a holistic understanding of how the provision, Section 6A, came into being.”
The complexity of citizenship provisions was evident in Dr. BR Ambedkar’s candid admission during the Constituent Assembly Debates (August 10, 1949):
“Except one other Article in the Draft Constitution, I do not think that any other article has given the Drafting Committee such a headache as this particular article. I do not know how many drafts were prepared and how many were destroyed as being inadequate to cover all the cases which it was thought necessary and desirable to cover.”
Parliamentary Privileges: Sita Soren v Union of India
The March 2024 judgment in Sita Soren v Union of India marked a significant reinterpretation of parliamentary privileges and immunity. The seven-judge bench unanimously overruled the P.V. Narasimha Rao decision, establishing that Articles 105(2) and 194(2) do not protect acts of bribery under parliamentary immunity.
In reaching this conclusion the court undertook a detailed analysis of the history of parliamentary privileges (Part E). This inquiry began with the Government of India Act 1833, where legislatures had special facilities, including providing complete information on the subject of the legislation, the right to be present in all meetings of the Council of the Governor-General, freedom of speech, and freedom of voting. The evolution of parliamentary privileges, with this starting point, was traced through the Charter Act of 1853, the Indian Council Act of 1861, and the Government of India Acts of 1909, 1919, and 1935. Beyond these legislations, references were also made to the Reforms Committee of 1924, which suggested that certain additional privileges be granted to Indian Legislatures. The committee further recommended introducing a penal provision for influencing votes within the legislature through inter alia bribery. This resulted in the government introducing the Legislative Bodies Corrupt Practices Bill, which although ultimately lapsed, proposed to penalise (i) the offering of bribe to a member of a legislature in connection with his functions; and (ii) the receipt on demand by a member of the legislature of a bribe in connection with his functions.
The privileges across these acts were said to not be a blanket immunity from criminal law. Despite colonial resistance, the demand for parliamentary privileges in India was consistently linked to their relevance to the responsibilities Indian legislators aimed to fulfill. (para 59). It was this pre constitutional background that was said to inform the vision of the Constituent Assembly pertaining to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
Affirmative Action: State of Punjab v Davinder Singh
In August 2024, the Supreme Court addressed the complex issue of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste categories. The seven-judge bench’s 6:1 majority decision drew heavily on historical sources to understand the heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes. Both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion relied on the Constituent Assembly Debates to analyse Article 341 of the Constitution – Scheduled Castes. Draft Article 300A (corresponding to Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950) was not included in the Draft Constitution of 1948. It was introduced by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee on 17 September 1949. This provision authorized the President to identify and designate castes, races, or tribes as ‘Scheduled Castes’ through a public notification, following consultation with the Governor of a State. Additionally, it granted Parliament the authority to modify the President’s notification by including or excluding any caste, race, or tribe through legislation.
The Court’s analysis referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s explanation in the Constituent Assembly regarding Article 341:
“The only limitation that has been imposed is this: that once a notification has been issued by the President… thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the list so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President.”
Beyond references to constitutional history, the decision of the court also undertook a historical analysis to gather evidence of backwardness within the Scheduled Castes. This historical injustice of untouchability was a major factor considered in arriving at the outcome of the case. The historical material used to analyse heterogeneity and intelligible differentia began with the definition of depressed classes as raised in 1916 in the Legislative Council, and surveyed developments in the 1919 Southborough Franchise Committee, the 1931 Hutton Census Report, Report of the Indian Franchise Committee (1932) Vol I, the Minutes of dissent by Mr SB Rambe, Mr CY Chintamani, Mr RR Bakhale, Report of the Franchise Committee, the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order 1936, and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950.
Conclusion
These landmark judgments of 2024 illustrate the enduring relevance of constitutional history in contemporary judicial decision-making. The Court’s deep engagement with historical materials – from Constituent Assembly Debates to colonial legislation – is crucial for illuminating present-day constitutional challenges. Each case examined here dealt with fundamental aspects of Indian democracy: citizenship rights in an era of migration, the boundaries of parliamentary privilege in face of corruption, and the evolving interpretation of affirmative action policies. The historical analysis employed in these judgments serves multiple purposes. It provides a context for understanding the constitutional provisions, helps trace the evolution of legal principles through time, and ensures that contemporary interpretations link to the Constitution’s fundamental principles while adapting to modern challenges.
Pluralist Agreement and Constitutional Transformation 