Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India

Last updated

The Constitution of India (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971
Emblem of India.svg
Parliament of India
  • An Act further to amend the Constitution of India.
Citation 24th Amendment
Territorial extent India
Passed by Lok Sabha
Passed4 August 1971
Passed by Rajya Sabha
Passed11 August 1971
Assented to5 November 1971
Commenced5 November 1971
Legislative history
First chamber: Lok Sabha
Bill titleConstitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971
Bill published on28 July 1971
Introduced byH.R. Gokhale
Summary
Enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution, and empowers it to amend any provision of the Constitution. Also makes it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill is presented to him.
Status: In force

The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him. [1]

Contents

The 24th Amendment was enacted, by the Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi, to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in Golaknath v. State of Punjab . The judgement reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. To abrogate the ruling, the government intended to amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, thereby bringing Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure, and preventing review of those changes by the courts.

The 24th Amendment came into force on 5 November 1971. The Indian press criticised the 24th Amendment as being too sweeping in its ambit, and of dubious legality. The Amendment was also opposed by jurists, and all the surviving members of the Constituent Assembly at the time. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973.

Text

BE it enacted by Parliament and in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

1. Short title This Act may be called the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971.

2. Amendment of article 13 In article 13 of the Constitution, after clause (3), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
"(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368."

3. Amendment of article 368 Article 368 of the Constitution shall be re-numbered as clause (2) thereof, and—

(a) for the marginal heading to that article, the following marginal heading shall be substituted, namely:—
"Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.";
(b) before clause (2) as so re-numbered, the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
"(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.";
(c) in clause (2) as so re-numbered, for the words "it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill", the words "it shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon" shall be substituted;
(d) After clause (2) as so re-numbered, the following clause shall be inserted namely:—
"(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article". [2] [3]

The full text of article 13, after the 24th Amendment, is given below:

13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368. [4]

The full text of article 368, after the 24th Amendment, is given below:

368. Procedure for amendment of the Constitution.Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Billit shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:

Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in—

(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule by resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the President for assent. [4]

(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.

Background

The 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void." The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III. [5]

The judgment reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. To abrogate the ruling, the government intended to amend article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, thereby bringing Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure. [6]

Proposal and enactment

The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971 (Bill No. 105 of 1971) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 28 July 1971 by H.R. Gokhale, then Minister of Law and Justice. The Bill sought to amend articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. [1] The full text of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the bill is given below:

The Supreme Court in the well-known Golak Nath's case [1967, 2 S.C.R. 762] reversed, by a narrow majority, its own earlier decisions upholding the power of Parliament to amend all parts of the Constitution including Part III relating to fundamental rights. The result of the judgment is that Parliament is considered to have no power to take away or curtail any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution even if it becomes necessary to do so for giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy and for the attainment of the objectives set out in the Preamble to the Constitution. It is, therefore, considered necessary to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution so as to include the provisions of Part III within the scope of the amending power.

2. The Bill seeks to amend article 368 suitably for the purpose and makes it clear that article 368 provides for amendment of the Constitution as well as procedure therefor. The Bill further provides that when a Constitution Amendment Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the President for his assent, he should give his assent thereto. The Bill also seeks to amend article 13 of the Constitution to make it inapplicable to any amendment of the Constitution under article 368.

— H.R. Gokhale, "The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1971".PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .

The Bill was considered by the Lok Sabha on 3 and 4 August, and passed, in the original form, on 4 August 1971. [1] While moving the bill for consideration in the Lok Sabha, Gokhale stated that the fear that Parliament would "misuse the power to curtail Fundamental Rights once it acquired the power to amend them, was unfounded." Gokhale further stated that Directive Principles must prevail over Fundamental Rights, in case of conflict between the two. [6]

Union Education Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray stated that allowing judgements like that in the Golaknath case would have "disastrous consequences". Congress member Darbara Singh felt that "the attitude of the Supreme Court must change with the times". A.K. Gopalan, leader of the Communist Party (Marxist) (CPM), supported the bill during the debate in the Lok Sabha on 3 August. Gopalan stated that the present Constitution was a "bundle of contradictions" drawn up by "representatives of princely houses and big business". [6]

In response to critics of the amendment, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi stated, "we are committed to the upholding of the fundamental freedom - of assembly and of worship - and our commitment to secular democracy is non-negotiable". [6]

The Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, was considered by the Rajya Sabha on 10 and 11 August and passed on 11 August 1971. [1] The debate in the Rajya Sabha was brief. [6]

The bill received assent from then President Varahagiri Venkata Giri on 5 November 1971. It was notified in The Gazette of India and came into force on the same day. [1] [7] [8]

Ratification

The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and was ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. State Legislatures that ratified the amendment are listed below: [1]

Reception

The Hindu , in its editorial on 6 August 1971, stated, "All change and growth whether political or biological, have to conform to the basic laws of their province, or otherwise such growth would soon be found to be cancerous and self destructive. And even if certain urgently needed socio-economic changes call for a cribbling and cabining of the right property, the sweeping power conferred on Parliament by the 24th Amendment to tamper with all the rights, including the right to freedom of association and of religion, are such that it is not surprising that some leaders of minorities and some 'committed' socialists have been alarmed over the grim possibilities." [9] In a 1971 editorial on the amendment, The Statesman wrote, "The implications are breath-taking. Parliament now has the power to deny the seven freedoms, abolish Constitutional remedies available to citizens, and to change the federal character of the Union." [10]

Legal expert V. G. Ramachandran, writing in the Supreme Court Cases Journal in 1971, stated that the 24th and 25th Amendments were "not 'tinkering' with the Constitution. It is a veritable slaughter of the Constitution". [9] He felt that the 25th Amendment "smacks of totalitarianism and hurry to achieve socialism instantly overnight". [9]

Mahommedali Currim Chagla, former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, opposed the 24th Amendment. [6] Former Attorney-General M.C. Setalvad described the 24th Amendment as "a complete negation of the rule of law", and stressed that apart from its effect on the Indian people, the amendment endangered government itself. [10] Renowned jurists Kasturiranga Santhanam and Nanabhoy Palkhivala also opposed the amendment. The 24th Amendment was also opposed by B. Shiva Rao, Frank Anthony and all surviving members of the Constituent Assembly. [9]

The 24th Amendment received little attention from the general public at the time of its enactment, as their attention was focused on tense relations between India and Pakistan due to the ongoing Bangladesh Liberation War, which later led to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. [10]

Aftermath

The 24th Amendment was the first of a series of measures taken by Indira Gandhi to increase her power, and establish one-party rule. [10] It was followed by several constitutional amendments designed to weaken the judiciary, and enhance the authority of Parliament and the Prime Minister's Office. The most notable among these were the 25th, 38th and 39th Amendments, culminating in the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during The Emergency, which brought about the most sweeping changes to the Constitution in history. [6]

Kesavananda Bharati case

The Supreme Court reviewed its decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab , in 1971 in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges. The Bench gave eleven judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others. [11] The Court held, by a margin of 7-6, that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament (thus overruling the 1967 case), the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment". [12]

The Court upheld Section 2(a) and 2(b), and the first part of section 3 of the 25th Amendment as valid. However, the second part namely "and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy" was declared unconstitutional. [5] [13]

The government of Indira Gandhi did not take kindly to this implied restriction on its powers by the court. On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray, who was among the dissenters, was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history. Advocate C.K. Daphtary termed the incident as "the blackest day in the history of democracy". Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah (previous Chief Justice of India) remarked that "this was an attempt of not creating 'forward looking judges' but 'judges looking forward' to the office of Chief Justice". [14]

The government enacted the 42nd Amendment in 1976, to abrogate the Kesavananda Bharati ruling

See also

Related Research Articles

This is a brief description of the lawmaking procedure in India.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment to the Indian Constitution

The 42nd amendment, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1976, was enacted during the Emergency by the Indian National Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.

<i>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala</i> Landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. The court in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Permits eminent domain

The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

<i>I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs.</i> 1967 Supreme Court of India case

Golaknath v. State Of Punjab, or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

Part I—The Union and Its territories is a compilation of laws pertaining to the constitution of India as a country and the union of states that it is made of.

The Sixty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1988, lowered the voting age of elections to the Lok Sabha and to the Legislative Assemblies of States from 21 years to 18 years. This was done by amending Article 326 of the Constitution, which concerns elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment regarding state boundaries

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1955, empowered the President to prescribe a time limit for a State Legislature to convey its views on proposed Central laws relating to the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States. The amendment also permitted the President to extend the prescribed limit, and prohibited any such bill from being introduced in Parliament until after the expiry of the prescribed or extended period. The 5th Amendment re-enacted the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Taxed inter-state commerce

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1956, brought taxes on inter-State sales and purchases of goods other than newspapers within the exclusive legislative and executive power of the Union, and levied taxes on inter-State sales and purchase of goods other than newspapers. Although these taxes would be levied and collected in accordance with an Act of Parliament, they would not form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, but would accrue to the States themselves in accordance with such principles of distribution as may be formulated by Parliament by law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1961, provided that the Vice-President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of the members of both Houses of Parliament, thereby dispensing with the earlier requirement of a joint meeting of members of both Houses of Parliament assembled for the said purpose. The 11th Amendment inserted a new clause (4) in article 71 of the Constitution to clarify that the election of President or Vice-President cannot be challenged on the ground of the existence of any vacancy for whatever reason in the appropriate electoral college.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1962, incorporated Pondicherry as the ninth Union territory of India, and also gave Parliament the authority to create by law, Legislatures and Councils of Ministers for the Union territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Puducherry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Clarified the meaning of "State" in the Indian Constitution

The Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1966, amended article 3 of the Constitution in order to clarify the "State" in clauses (a) to (e) of that article include "Union territories". It also added another "Explanation" that the power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Abolished and replaced election tribunals

The Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1966, abolished Election Tribunals in India and enabled trial of election petitions by High Courts. It amended clause (1) of article 324 of the Constitution, which provides for vesting of the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections with the Election Commission. The 19th Amendment removed the provision relating to the power of "the appointment of election tribunals for the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of States".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1969, inserted new article 244A in the Constitution to empower Parliament to enact a law for constituting an autonomous State within the State of Assam and also to provide the autonomous State with Legislature or a Council of Ministers or both with such powers and functions as may be defined by that law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixtieth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Sixtieth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1988, amended article 276 of the Constitution relating to taxes on professions, trades, callings and employments. Section 2 of the Act amended Clause (2) of article 276 of the Constitution to increase the ceiling of tax on professions, trades, callings and employments from ₹250 per person per annum to ₹2500 per person per annum. The 60th Amendment also omitted the proviso to clause (2) of article 276.

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India explicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32, 131 through 136, 143, 226 and 246.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India</span>

The Forty-third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as the Constitution Act, 1977, repealed six articles that had been inserted into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment which had been enacted by the Indira Gandhi-led Indian National Congress during the Emergency. The 43rd Amendment was enacted by the newly elected Janata Party which had won the 1977 general elections campaigning on a promise to "restore the Constitution to the condition it was in before the Emergency".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Hundred and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Constitutional amendment of 2019

The One Hundred and Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, extends the deadline for the cessation of the reservation of seats for members from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies by a period of 10 years.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 R.C. Bhardwaj, ed. (1 January 1995). Constitution Amendment in India (Sixth ed.). New Delhi: Northern Book Centre. pp. 41–42, 180, 317–318. ISBN   9788172110659 . Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  2. ↑ "Texts of the Constitution Amendment Acts" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. 446–447. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 7 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  3. ↑ "The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971" . Retrieved 7 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  4. 1 2 "The Constitution of India (1949)" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. 905–906. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 30 November 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  5. 1 2 "Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. 14–17. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 7 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 G. G. Mirchandani (1 January 1977). Subverting the Constitution. Abhinav Publications. pp. 34–37, 182. ISBN   9788170170570 . Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  7. ↑ "Constitution Amendment in India" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. p. 112. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 7 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  8. ↑ "The Constitution (Amendment) Acts". Constitution.org. Retrieved 5 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  9. 1 2 3 4 V. G. Ramachandran (1971). "The Constitution 24th Amendment Act And 25th Amendment Bill". Supreme Court Cases. 2 (11). Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Scott, Paul (23 November 1971). "Indira Gandhi Moving To Increase Her Power". Bangor Daily News. Washington. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  11. ↑ "Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process" (PDF). Lok Sabha Secretariat. pp. 16–17. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 1 December 2013.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  12. ↑ Austin, Granville (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution - A History of the Indian Experience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 258–277. ISBN   019565610-5.
  13. ↑ Satya Prateek (2008). "Today's Promise, Tomorrow's Constitution: 'Basic Structure', Constitutional Transformations And The Future Of Political Progress In India" (PDF). NUJS Law Review. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. 1 (3). Retrieved 17 July 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  14. ↑ "Supreme Court Bar Association". Archived from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 8 December 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.