KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERALA PDF
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):||23 February 2013|
|PDF File Size:||15.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It is obvious that none of the above provisions is suitable for enforcement by the courts. 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.
Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala
Hermes C. I would require stronger reason than those given in Sankari Prasad’s case to make me accept the view that Fundamental Rights ztate not really fundamental but were intended to be within the powers of amendment in common with the other parts of the Constitution and without the concurrence of the States. The Union of India  2 S. Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves  3 S. State of Madras  1 S. It may be noted that what was implied regarding carrying on trade was made an express provision in the Constitution by the Constitution Seventh Amendment Act,when a new Article was substituted.
Union of India  3 S.
Amendment is a legislative process. Although the state invoked its authority under Article 21, a noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivalaconvinced Swami into filing his petition lesavananda Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. The Sub-Committee on Minorities met later the same day. In the Constitution the word “amendment” or “amend” has been used in various places to mean different things.
The Constitution indicates three modes of amendments and assuming that the provisions of Article confer power on Parliament to amend the Constitution, it will still have to be wtate whether as long as the preamble stands unamended, that power can be exercised with respect to any of the basic features of the Constitution.
It is upon the courts to see that a staet amendment violates Basic structure or not. The court found the answer to the question left unanswered in Golaknath viz.
This doctrine implies that though Parliament has the prerogative to amend the entire Constitution but subject to the condition that they cannot in any manner interfere with the features so fundamental to this Constitution that without them it would be spiritless.
Emphasis supplied The Federal character of the Australian Constitution carries implications of its own These principles were commonly termed as Basic Structure. Kesavananda Bharati is the most referred name in Indian constitutional law.
Another point at issue was the status of the Commonwealth and the States under the Constitution, and the extent to which the Commonwealth Parliament may pass laws binding on the States, considered generally and historically, and with particular reference to the question whether there is any implied limitation on Commonwealth legislative power.
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.
Upholding the validity of clause 4 of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 3inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights also. In some articles, the word “amendment” in the context has a wide meaning and in another context it has a narrow meaning. Under this case Supreme Court of India outlined the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution and it can be regarded as a second sitting of ‘Constituent Assembly’.
It is true every provision is prima facie amendable under Article but this does not solve the problem before us. Archived copy as title.
In some respects the Commonwealth was placed in a position of supremacy, as the national interest required, but it would be inconsistent with the very basis of the federation that the Commonwealth’s powers should extend to reduce the States to such a position of subordination that their very existence, or at least their capacity to function effectually as independent units, would be dependent upon the manner in which the Commonwealth exercised its powers, rather than on the legal limits of the powers themselves.
No other Constitution in the world is like ours.
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to vd compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
Article 25 1 provides that “subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. I may now briefly notice the directive principles mentioned in Part IV. Further, the Court said that an kesavxnanda is a law under Article 13 2 of the Constitution of India and if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void.
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”. On the other hand it must often be difficult to say that any terms are clear and unambiguous until they have been studied in their context. The question which arose before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was whether Section 41 of the Bribery Amendment Act, contravened Section 29 4 of the Ceylon Constitution, and was consequently invalid.
I may here notice some relevant facts which constitute the background of the process of drafting the Constitution.
And this is the proposition which is in reality involved in the argument. We have, therefore, no option but to make the Constitution operative in these States on the basis of its acceptance by the Ruler of the Rajpramukh, as the case may be, who will no doubt consult his Council of Ministers. After making these observations, the Judicial Committee set out Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 29 of the Ceylon Constitution. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity of the equal and inalienable stat of all kesavanandw of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
In each case an implication means that something not expressed is to be understood. Hence the buildup to Kesavananda was marked by a series of cases and decisions that set the stage for the case itself.
It further provided that no person shall kesavananca appointed as, or shall remain, a member of the Judicial Service Commission, if he is Senator or a Member of Parliament.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
The same implied limitation on the Legislature, in the field of delegation, has been invoked and applied in:. Held that the Constitution of India which is essentially a social rather than a political document, is founded on a social philosophy and as such has two main features basic and circumstantial. It further provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for krsavananda same offence more than bharari, and no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
State of Orissa  1.
To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the preamble, Part III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights. Archived from the original on And accordingly we find, that it has been constantly referred to by statesmen and jurists to aid them in the exposition of its keraka.