Topics Covered: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure. The basic structure doctrine has since been regarded as a tenet of Indian constitutional law. Background of the case: All this effort was to answer just one main question: was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights? The court held that under Article , which provides Parliament amending powers, something must remain of the original Constitution that the new amendment would change. Since then, the court has been adding new features to this concept.
|Published (Last):||9 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||5.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.89 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Case Analysis- Kesavananda Bharati v. The Kesavananda Bharati case was popularly known as fundamental rights case and also the serious conflict between the Judiciary and the Government. Under this case Supreme Court of India outlined the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution which forms and gives basic powers to the Indian Judiciary to review or to amend the provisions of the constitution enacted by the Parliament of India which conflict with or seek to alter the basic structure of the constitution.
The fundamental question dealt in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala is whether the power to amend the constitution is an unlimited, or there is identifiable parameters regarding powers to amend the constitution. There are certain principles within the framework of Indian Constitution which are inviolable and hence cannot be amended by the Parliament.
These principles were commonly termed as Basic Structure. State of Punjab, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The case was of Kesavananda was heard by the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges.
The Bench gave eleven separate judgements which are agreed on some point and disagreed on others. The eleven separate Judgments are summarized but before that there are series of cases which was review by the Judges of Supreme Court under Kesavanada Case are:. The sacred legitimacy of first amendment , which shortened the privilege to property, was tested.
In this manner, an Established revision will be substantial regardless of whether it shortens or takes any of the key rights. The validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which changed the definition of an "Estate" given in article 31A of the Constitution so as to include therein Lands held under ryotwari Settlement in addition to other Lands in respect of which Provisions are normally made in Land Reform Enactments.
The Amendment also added 44 additional State Enactments relating to land reforms to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution in order to secure their Constitutional Validity and prevent them from being challenged before the judiciary on the ground that they are inconsistent with any of the Provisions of Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights.
This was challenged on the ground that one of the acts inserted by the amendment in the 9th Schedule affected the petitioner on the basis that the amendment fell within the purview of Article Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 2 the case was rightly decided. Amendment includes Amendment to all provisions of the Constitution.
It also added that Article merely lays down the procedure for the purpose of amendment. Further, the Court said that an amendment is a law under Article 13 2 of the Constitution of India and if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void. Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.
Article does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure. To nullify the Golaknath verdict, Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, laying down that its powers to amend the Constitution were unrestricted and unlimited.
Finally all the issues related to it were challenged in Keshavanand Case. The Supreme Court has struck down with the Bank Nationalization Act, because of the compensation element of the enactment, while upholding the right of the Parliament to nationalize the banks.
The Government then attempted to abolish Privy Purses, which were payments promised to the erstwhile princes by the Indian Government at the time of Independence. The Supreme Court of India has again struck down with the Presidential order, which resulted in the above abolition.
Sikri C. According, to the said Judge, Fundamental Rights conferred under Part 3 rd of the constitution cannot be abolished, though the reasonable abolishment of such rights could affect the public interest at large. There are some limitations on the part of the amendment and therefore, according to the Chief Justice, the expression mentioned under Art.
According to the Preamble of the Constitution, every provision of the constitution was free to amend provide that the basic structure or the foundation of the constitution should not get destroyed or damaged. According, to the learned Judge, Part 3 rd and 4 th of the constitution i. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must be balanced and harmonized which forms the basic element of the constitution which cannot be amended.
Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ. According to the learned Judge, the broad outline of the basic and fundamental elements of the constitution are demarcated in the preamble of the constitution and the Parliament has no power to abolished or to altered any basic part of the fundamental features.
The learned Judge invalidated Art. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. According to the learned Judge some of the basic fundamental principles were mention under the preamble i. In conclusion, the learned Judge held that the power of amendment was wide, and it did not said that to totally abolished or damage any of the basic fundamental principles of the constitution, subject to such limitations Parliament have power to alter or amend any or every provision of the constitution.
State of Punjab. The Supreme Court pronounced its ruling, by a majority of Judges. The respected court held that an amendment of the constitution is a legislative process. And that the amendment under law stated under art. The Supreme Court of India reviewed the decision in , held and considered the validity of the 24 th Amendment, 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. The majority of Judges related to the matter of Article 31 C of the constitution which was added by the 25 th Amendment is void.
Whereas, Justice Reddy stated that the parts of the article 31 C is valid. However, Justice Khanna , held that the first part of the article 31 C was valid, whereas, the second part was void. Majority have differing in opinion are:. Kesavanand Bharati case over ruled the Golaknath case but it did not re-established the supremacy of the parliament.
Those fundamental rights which formed the basic structure of the constitution cannot be abridged. In Golaknath case, they gave the priority to the fundamental rights only. Whereas, in Kesavanand Bharati case, it recognizes some other provisions of the constitution also and stated that if, such provisions form the basic structure then it cannot be amended. It is also stated that under the virtue of Art.
By invalidating the part of Art. This, a state legislature could make a review proof law. Kesavanand Bharati case, is an example of judicial creativity of its first order. The basic feature cannot be altered, abolished or abridged. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu , the Supreme Court held that all laws and provisions of the constitution directly or indirectly were related to the fundamental rights, and which are the part of the basic structure.
Henceforth, every element of any law which is subjected to be amended must be tested and it should not abridge any of the basic structure of the constitution.
The pages judgment revealed the different opinions of the Judges. This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed, saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharati will always occupy a hallowed place in our constitutional history.
Thursday, 04, Jun, Judges to discuss Court's functioning in Lockdown and future action with Bar. Search Now. Google pledges USD 12 million to organizations working to address racial inequities.
An Overview on the Law of Adverse Possession. SC appoints a Committee of Three Sr. Categories : Articles Case Analysis. The Act was tested in High Court which held the demonstration to be Unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Consequently keeping in mind the end goal to ensure and Validate Zamindari Abolition laws, the Government made First Amendment of the Constitution of India which rolled out a few improvements to the Fundamental Rights arrangements of the Constitution. Article Anand 31 B was likewise included. Ninth Schedule was embedded which ensures any Legislation embedded inside the Schedule, from Judicial audit.
Henceforth the development to Kesavananda was set apart by a progression of Cases and choices that set the phase for the case itself. Despite of the fact that the state conjured its power under Article 21, an Indian legal scholar, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, persuaded the Swami into filing his petition of under Article 26, concerning the privilege to oversee religiously claimed property without government obstruction.
The enormous battle was foreseen. Real revisions to the Constitution the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th had been sanctioned by Indira Gandhi's legislature through Parliament to get over the judgments of the Preeminent Court in R. Cooper , Madhavrao Scindia and Golak Nath. The first had struck down bank nationalization, the second had abrogated the nullification of privy satchels of previous rulers and the third had held that the revising force couldn't touch Principal Rights.
Every one of these corrections was under test in Kesavananda. Since Golak Nath was chosen by eleven judges, a bigger seat was required to test its rightness. Thus 13 judges were to sit on the Kesavananda case. Despite the fact that the hearings expended five months, the result would significantly influence India's popularity based procedures. Union of India The sacred legitimacy of first amendment , which shortened the privilege to property, was tested.
Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan The validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which changed the definition of an "Estate" given in article 31A of the Constitution so as to include therein Lands held under ryotwari Settlement in addition to other Lands in respect of which Provisions are normally made in Land Reform Enactments.
Golaknath V. C Cooper V. Union of India: The Supreme Court has struck down with the Bank Nationalization Act, because of the compensation element of the enactment, while upholding the right of the Parliament to nationalize the banks.
Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India: The Supreme Court of India has again struck down with the Presidential order, which resulted in the above abolition. Whether 24 th Amendment act, is valid? Whether Section 2 a , 2 b and Section 3 of 25 th Amendment, is valid? Whether 29 th Amendment Act, is valid? The Supreme Court upheld the validity of 29 th Amendment, Whether the Article 31 C of the constitution is valid or not?
The form of Government must be Republic and Democratic. There must be Secularism. Separation of powers must be maintained.
Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri Kesavananda Bharati , eminent jurist Nanabhoy Palkhivala and the seven judges who were in the majority. State of Kerala and Anr. The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath v. State of Punjab , which held that constitutional amendments pursuant to Article were subject to fundamental rights review, by asserting that only those amendments which tend to affect the 'basic structure of the Constitution' are subject to judicial review. At the same time, the Court also upheld the constitutionality of first provision of Article C, which implied that any constitutional amendment seeking to implement the Directive Principles, which does not affect the 'Basic Structure', shall not be subjected to judicial review.
Basic structure and the Kesavananda Bharati case
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and The Basic Structure Doctrine
You may know that Google is tracking you, but most people don't realize the extent of it. Luckily, there are simple steps you can take to dramatically reduce Google's tracking. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. At that time, this was the full strength of the Supreme Court. This is largest strength of a bench of the Supreme Court which has finally decided any case so far. The main issue in this case was the nature and scope of amending power of the Constitution, i.
Major judgments of the Supreme Court are mentioned in the newscard. Aspirants are advised to memorize them all with thier key features. Right from the Shankari Prasad Judgment to the Ayodhya Judgement , note down all important judgements. Skip to content. It is based on this document that all other laws are made and enforced. Under some Constitutions, certain parts are immune from amendments and are given a special status compared to other provisions. Since the Indian Constitution was first adopted, debates have raged as to the extent of power that Parliament should have to amend key provisions.