Advocate Aankhi Ghosh writes that it is time to reargue Kesavananda Bharati case and reconsider the Basic Structure doctrine. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Kesavananda Bharati) is perhaps the most well-known constitutional decision of the. Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri Kesavananda Bharati, eminent jurist Nanabhoy Palkhivala and the seven.

Author: Docage Naran
Country: Guinea-Bissau
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 4 October 2012
Pages: 57
PDF File Size: 15.74 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.56 Mb
ISBN: 413-9-44143-712-3
Downloads: 28988
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazrakus

The intention of the Imperial legislature in enacting the Constitution Act was to give effect to the wish of the Australian people to join in a federal union and the purpose of the Constitution was to establish a federal, and not a unitary, system for the government of Australia and accordingly to provide for the distribution of the powers of government between the Commonwealth and the States who were to bharatu the constituent members of the federation.

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 judvment of the Constitutional provisions about the appointment of judicial officers. Is it to be imagined that a two-thirds majority of the two Houses at any time is all that is necessary to alter it without even consulting the States?

State of Bombay 1 SCR I may here mention that while kesabananda fundamental rights and directive principles were being fashioned and approved of by the Constituent Assembly, on December 10, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Cross points out that there is generally no distinction between these two senses of the expression until a decision has been interpreted in a subsequent case ibid. V In the Golak Nath decision, the Court addressed itself to the question of abrogation or abridgment of the fundamental rights through a process of amendment.

It was expressly voted to be a part of the Constitution. He had been forced to yield under immense peer pressure, and the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court was restored. On bharai side of the petitioners it is urged that the power of Parliament is much more limited. In order to fully appreciate the decision of the Privy Council it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Ceylon Independence Order in Council,hereinafter referred to as the Ceylon Constitution.


Accordingly, although the Constitution does, clearly enough, subject the States to laws made by the Parliament, it does so bbharati some limitation. Section 7 provides that “there shall be a Parliament of the Island which shall consist of His Majesty, and two Chambers to be known respectively as the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our Preamble outlines the objectives of the whole Constitution. These cases raise grave issues. Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Essex County Council 19 he stated: The learned Judge held that the essential elements of the keswvananda structure of the Constitution are reflected in its preamble and that some of the important features of the Constitution are justice, freedom of expression and equality of status and opportunity.

In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, the court ruled that the basic structure of the Constitution is inviolable, and could not be amended by Parliament. This argument was opposed, saying that the power of judicial review ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and not the judiciary, but the same cannot be said about the amending power of Parliament.

Eastern Book Company – Practical Lawyer

Not only was the Constitution framed in the light of the Preamble but the Preamble was ultimately settled in the light of the Constitution. Along with these provisions, there is also provision for judicial review in the Federal Republic.

Article 22 4 kesavananea with Preventive Detention. Therefore it is a desirable and a good thing for people to realise that this very fine Constitution that we have fashioned after years of labour is good so far as it goes, but as society changes, as conditions change we amend it in the proper way” quoted jucgment Khanna, J.

The proviso throws some light on the problem. Clause c of the proviso mentions the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, Clause d mentions the representation of States in Parliament, and Clause e the provisions of Article itself.

Kesavananda Bharati

Return to Text R. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No.


Constitution of a Bench for review of the verdict without a review petition having been filed was unprecedented. Retrieved 8 December In my opinion, not. Article 2 reads:. If this is true-I say that the concession was rightly made-then which is that meaning of the word “Amendment” that is most appropriate and fits in with the while scheme of the Constitution. The Union of India [] 2 S. Therefore, the words “amendment of the Constitution” in spite of the width of their sweep and in spite of their amplitude, could not have the effect of empowering the Parliament to destroy or abrogate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

What constitutes the basic structure is not clearly made out.

It first describes the expression “the State” to include “the Government and Parliament of India and kesavanaanda Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

While this case has been discussed, written about and cherished for over forty years, rarely has the correctness of it been questioned. What then is meant by the retention of the old Constitution? The main arguments relevant to the present case which were advanced in support of the petition before this Court were summarised by Patanjali Sastri, J.

Justice A N Ray, who was among the six dissenting judges, took over as the 14th Chief Justice of India on April 26,superseding Justices Shelat, Grover and Hegde, who were on kesavanana side of the majority in the case. It should be treated as supplementary to the one forwarded to you bharqti my letter No. Chief Justice SM Sikri held that Parliament can kesavanands every Article in the Constitution, but this power of amendment is not absolute inasmuch as it does not enable Parliament to abrogate or take away fundamental rights or to completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution so as to destroy its identity.