February 3, 2020   |   by admin

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR SC () 4 SCC , is a case decided by a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme Court of. Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri Kesavananda Bharati, Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala (). The object of this paper is to consider certain aspects of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1.

Author: Brazahn Zolok
Country: Libya
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 17 September 2016
Pages: 438
PDF File Size: 16.60 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.42 Mb
ISBN: 854-3-32912-528-1
Downloads: 24147
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazutaur

Any law referred to in Clause kefala shall contain such provisions for the amendment of this Constitution as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary. The same rule has been applied to the provisions of this Constitution by this Court in State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors.

Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala

Then the Judicial Committee examined the effect of this conflict. We are, however, not concerned with the interpretation of an ordinary statute. First, the power of amending the Constitution provided for under Article kesaananda conferred not on Parliament but on the two Houses of Parliament as designated body and, therefore, the .vstate Parliament was not competent to exercise that power under Article V.statr confers legislative powers on the Governor during the recess of State Legislature by promulgating ordinances.

Before proceeding with the main task, it is necessary to ask: H R Khanna has given in his judgment that the Parliament had full power to amend the Constitution, however, since it is only a “power to amend”, the basic structure or framework of the structure should remain intact.

Those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did and those who spoke might differ from each other. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. Retrieved 11 August I may mention that the aforesaid provisions in the Indian Independence Act were enacted in line with the Cabinet Statement dated May 16, and the position of the Congress Party. In Article 5″all regulations made under the proviso to Clause 3 ” can be modified “whether by way of repeal or amendment” as both Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses of the Legislature of the States may make during the session in which they are so laid.


Ambiguity of the Judgment. In the present case, on the other hand, the legislature has purported to pass a law which being in conflict with Section 55 of the Order in Council, must be treated, if it is to be valid, as an implied alteration of the Constitutional kesavanaanda about the appointment of judicial officers. There is a sharp conflict of bhaarti in Australia respecting the question whether an amendment can be made which would be inconsistent with the Preamble of the Constitution Act referring to the “indissoluble” character and the sections which refer to the “Federal” nature of the Constitution.

Divergent views were expressed, and the Minorities Sub-Committee met on April 17, 18 and 19, bhafati consider this important matter. The building of a welfare State is the ultimate goal kesaavananda every Government but that does not mean that in order to build a welfare State, human freedoms have to suffer a total destruction.

You will remember that we passed the Fundamental Rights Committee’s Report which was sent by the Advisory Committee; the major part of those rights has been disposed of and accepted by this House.

Article is important.

Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April,

Makarajadhiraja of Darbhanga SCR at Raj Naraina Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. But the proposition which is not acceptable is that a legislature, once established, has some inherent power derived from the mere fact of its establishment to make a valid law by the resolution of a bare majority which its own constituent instrument has said shall not be a valid law unless made by a different type of majority or by a different legislative process.

Story says that Clause 18 imports no more than would remit from necessary implication see pp. Few words in the English language have a natural or ordinary meaning in the sense that they must be so read that their meaning is entirely independent of their context. No other Constitution in the world is like ours. I may mention that an attempt was made to expand the word “amend” in Article by proposing an amendment that “by way of variation, addition, or repeal” be added but the amendment was rejected.


This applies to existing laws as well as laws made after the coming into force of the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala

I need hardly observe that I am not interpreting an ordinary statute, but a Constitution which apart from setting up a machinery for government, has a noble and grand vision.

Ceylon’s Constitution “by L.

Despite that, the right to private property, is more solid today, and yet not kesvananda, as it should be nharati a market economy. They have been put there as a matter of public policy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law which have been enacted as a matter of Constitutional policy.

According to the Hon’ble Judge, although it was permissible to the Parliament, in exercise of its amending power, to effect changes so kedala to meet the requirements of changing conditions, it was not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern.

The petitioners also submitted that it was the Constitution of India which granted the citizens freedom from tyranny which they have suffered at the hands of Colonialism.

With respect, the Court was wrong in holding, as has been shown above, that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution unless the court was thinking of the distinction between the Constitution Statute and the Constitution, kessavananda by Mr. The Congress shall have power I may now briefly notice the directive principles mentioned in Part IV. Do rights remain inalienable if they can be amended out of existence?