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.
|Published (Last):||18 May 2017|
|PDF File Size:||5.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.14 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided the basic foundation and structure of bharwti Constitution remains the same. State of Rajasthan  1 S. Ambiguity of the Judgment. 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.
Similar language is used in Article whereby existing laws continue v.statte be in force until “altered or repealed or amended’ by a competent Legislature or other competent authority.
I respectfully adopt the reasoning of Lord Greene in construing the expression “the amendment v.wtate the Constitution. It often happens that what has been implied by jesavananda in one Constitution is expressly conferred in another Constitution. The States are not outside the Constitution. The Federal Court and the Supreme Court of India have recognised and applied this principle in other cases:.
After making these observations, the learned Judge examined authorities v.satte he found support in Malbourne Corporation v. I may mention that the Judicial Committee while interpreting the British North America Act, had also kept in mind the preservation of the rights of minorities for they say In re The Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada: Article makes special provisions for Anglo-Indian community in certain services, and Article makes special provisions in respect of educational grants for the benefit of Anglo- Indian community.
But in any event the insertion of an express reference to amendment in the Constitution itself must surely operate as a qualification upon the mere recital of the reasons for its creation. There the legislature having full power to make laws by a majority, except upon one subject that was not in question, passed a law which conflicted with one of the existing terms of the Constitution Act. The case had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31,and ending on March 23, .
There is no doubt that it is not intended that bharatti whole Constitution could be repealed. Article 2 reads:.
Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala
Archived from the original PDF on 3 December These speeches cannot be used as aids for interpreting the Constitution-see State of Travancore Cochin and Ors. 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.
The Courts could not, for instance, issue a mandamus directing the State to provide adequate means of livelihood to every citizen, or that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community be so distributed as best to subserve the common good, or that there should be equal pay for equal work for both men and women. State of Punjab Now I may briefly describe the scheme of the Constitution.
I will mention a few instances approved by the Judicial Committee and this Court and other Courts. 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”.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Wikipedia
The 29 th Amendment passed in the year had the effect of inserting The Kerala Land Reforms Act into IX Schedule which means it is outside the scope kearla judicial scrutiny. This contention is not supported by the speeches No other Constitution combines under its wings such diverse peoples, numbering now more than millions, with different languages and religions and in different stages of economic development, into one nation, and no other nation is faced with such vast socio-economic problems.
The learned Chief Justice thought v.staet the power to amend in the context was a kesavanznda wide power and it could not be controlled’ by the literal dictionary meaning of the word “amend”.
This conclusion is also reinforced by the concession of the Attorney-General and Mr. It is in the preamble of the Kesaananda of Australia Constitution Act, that ‘one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth’ is mentioned. 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.
Reference was made to Section 6 2 of the Indian Independence Act,in which the last three lines read:. It first describes the expression “the State” to include “the Government and Parliament of Kkerala and the 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.
Those bhrati did not speak may not have agreed with those who did and those who spoke might differ from each other.
Article 3 and 4 dealt with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.
Article 33 enables Parliament by law to “determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces mesavananda the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. 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 provisions about the appointment of judicial officers.
Above all, it formulated a solemn and dignified preamble which appears bgarati be an epitome of the basic features of the Constitution. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
The present report deals with what may broadly be described as political safeguards of minorities and covers the following points:.
Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April,
Category Index Outline Portal. Lord Greene is not alone in this approach. Subject to the provisions of Articles anda Bill shall not be deemed to have been passed by the Houses of the Legislature of a State having a Legislative Council unless it has been agreed to by both Houses, either without amendment or with such amendments only as are agreed to by both Houses.
Rao and reproduced it in its report of July 4, without any change, with the tacit recognition at that stage that the Preamble would be finally based on the Objectives Resolution.