Two developments further added to the tension between the judiciary and the executive. Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 in the Keshavananda Bharati case, a vacancy arose for the post of the Chief Justice of India. It had been a practice to appoint the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice. But in 1973, the government set aside the seniority of three judges and appointed Justice A. N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India. The appointment became politically controversial because all the three judges who were superseded had given rulings against the stand of the government. Thus, constitutional interpretations and political ideologies were getting mixed up rapidly. People close to the Prime Minister started talking of the need for a judiciary and the bureaucracy ‘committed’ to the vision of the executive and the legislature. The climax of the confrontation was of course the ruling of the High Court declaring Indira Gandhi’s election invalid.

In the conflict between the government and the judiciary during the 1970s in India, what were the three constitutional issues?

Fundamental Rights, right to property, and Directive Principles

Answer: Fundamental Rights, right to property, and Directive Principles
There were three constitutional issues between the government and the judiciary in the 1970s: the abridgment of Fundamental Rights, the curtailment of the right to property, and amending the Constitution for Directive Principles.
This was also the period when the government and the ruling party had many differences with the judiciary. There was a long-drawn conflict between the Parliament and the judiciary. Three constitutional issues had emerged. Can the Parliament abridge Fundamental Rights? The Supreme Court said it cannot. Secondly, can the Parliament curtail the right to property by making an amendment? Again, the Court said that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in such a manner that rights are curtailed. Thirdly, the Parliament amended the Constitution saying that it can abridge Fundamental Rights for giving effect to Directive Principles. But the Supreme Court rejected this provision also. This led to a crisis as far as the relations between the government and the judiciary were concerned. This crisis culminated in the famous Kesavananda Bharati Case. In this case, the Court gave a decision that there are some basic features of the Constitution and the Parliament cannot amend these features.