Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala () Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (AIR SC ) . Champakam Dorairajan vs State of Madras. Issue. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) OF Appellants: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Anr. Decided. 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.
|Published (Last):||14 August 2017|
|PDF File Size:||13.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
While moving the resolution for acceptance of the Objectives Resolution, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said:.
Not only was the Constitution framed in the light of the Preamble but the Preamble was ultimately settled in the light of the Constitution. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived to be unprecedented.
State of Kerala and Anr. Emphasis supplied The Federal system itself is the foundation of the restraint upon v use of the power to control the State Under the proviso this period can be extended while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation for a period not exceeding in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the rights under Article 19 in respect of various matters.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
This case shows that if on reading Article in the context of the Constitution I find kesavanandq word kesavajanda ambiguous I can refer to the Preamble to find which construction would fit in with the Preamble. When the case was placed before the Constitutional bench, it referred this case nharati a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned Constitutional amendments. Union of India The constitutional validity of first amendmentwhich curtailed the right to property, was challenged.
This case furnishes an exact example where implied limitations on the power to amend the Constitution have been inferred by no less a body than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Punjab  2 S. He is the follower of unique Smartha Bhagawatha tradition and Advaita Vedanta. Framing of Indian Constitution: It was provided in Article 85 1 before its amendment by the Constitution First Amendment Act that the House of Parliament shall be bharat to meet twice at least in every year, and six months shall not intervene between their last sittings in one session and the date appointed bhrati their first sitting in the next session.
It was held that this was valid legislation, since it must be treated as pro tanto an alteration of the Constitution, which was neither fundamental in the sense of being beyond change nor so constructed as to require any special legislative process to pass upon the topic dealt with. In accordance with this statement, declarations were issued by the Rulers or Rajpramukhs accepting the Constitution. The kesavananca is lengthy but I may quote these sentences:.
This inherent conflict and ambiguity was resolved when the majority bench came up with Doctrine of Basic Structure.
In pursuance of the above, a resolution for the setting up of an Advisory Committee on fundamental rights was moved by Govind Ballabh Pant in the Constituent Assembly on January 24, Under Article the Governor is enabled to suggest the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message.
We think that the rights described as fundamental rights are a necessary consequence of the declaration in the preamble that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity.
According to Gajendragadkar, C. Seervai and the learned Attorney General. Fifthly, the Amendment Actin so far as it purports to take away or abridge the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, falls within the prohibition of Article 13 2.
The only limitation, ksrala recognise is that in regard to certain major communal issues the decision should be by a majority of each of the two major communities. Amendment is a legislative process.
SUPREME COURT IN 1973 IN KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA
The fact that the said article refers to the two Houses of the Parliament and the President separately and not to the Parliament, does not lead to the inference that the body which is invested with the power to amend is not the Parliament but a different body consisting of the two Houses.
For the time being I assume that in Article 13 2 the stwte “law” includes Constitutional amendment. The learned Chief Justice thought that the power to amend in the context was a very wide power and it could not be controlled’ by the literal dictionary meaning of the word “amend”. It would not be legitimate to argue from the above express provision in the United Etate Constitution that if the Constitution-makers wanted to give such powers to the Parliament of India they would have expressly conferred incidental powers.
But, on the basis of earlier decisions of this Court, they were valid. Supreme Court of India.
Hari Shankar Bagla v. It reserved seats in the House of the People for these classes.
These provisions of the Indian Independence Act amply demonstrate that when the Constituent Assembly started functioning, it knew, if it acted under the Indian Independence Act, that it could limit the powers of the future Dominion Parliaments.
I may mention that Prof. The only emendation that I would venture is that I would prefer not to say “making implications”, because our avowed task is simply the revealing or uncovering of implications that are already there. If it was bharafi design that fundamental rights might be abrogated surely they would have expressly provided it somewhere. It is in the latter sense that in my view of the matter, implications have a place in the interpretation of the Kesavansnda The judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual.
Therefore, this precious judgment had restored the faith of common people in Judiciary as well as in Democracy. 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 bgarati fell within the purview of Article But in order to give these minorities and particularly the smaller minorities like the Indian Christians and the Anglo-Indians and also the tribal representatives a better opportunity of influencing minority provisions, we have made provision for the setting up by the Constitution-making body of an influential advisory Commission which will take the initiative in the preparation of the list of fundamental rights, the minority protection clauses and the proposals for the administration of tribal and excluded areas.
Held that the preamble to the Constitution contains the clue to the fundamentals of the Constitution.