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):||12 February 2010|
|PDF File Size:||13.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The bench was fearful that if the Parliament is given unrestricted amending power then a political party with a two-third majority in Parliament, for a few years, vx make any change in the Constitution even to the extent of repealing it to suit its own preferences.
Case opinions Majority Sikri C. To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the preamble, Part III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights. Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
In the original Article 2in conferring power on the President to make regulations for the peace and good government of bhafati territories in part D of the First Schedule, it is stated that “any regulation so made may repeal or amend any law made by Parliament.
The Judicial Committee deduced from these provisions thus: The word ‘amendment’ could not possibly embrace the right to abrogate the pivotal features and the fundamental freedoms and therefore, that part of the basic structure could not be damaged or destroyed. While moving the resolution for acceptance of the Objectives Resolution, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said:.
If a law made by Parliament or the state legislatures violates any provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to declare such a law invalid or ultra vires. Palkhivala, Section 29 1 corresponds to Articles andand Section 29 4 corresponds to Article of our Constitution, and Kesavannanda 29 2 and 29 3 correspond to Article 13 2 of our Constitution, read with fundamental rights. The reason could only be an implied limitation on the power to amend under Section 29 4 deducible from “the solemn balance of rights between the citizens of Ceylon, the fundamental conditions on which inter se they accepted the Constitution”.
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. If they cannot, it will be for consideration whether they can be modified. Provided that no Bill for the amendment or repeal of any of the Provisions of this Order shall be presented for the Royal Assent unless it has endorsed on it a certificate under hand of the Speaker that the number of votes cast in favour thereof in the House of Representatives amounted to not less than twothirds of the whole number of members of the House including those not present.
The vision was put in words in the Preamble and carried out in part by conferring fundamental rights on the people. It was held that “as a matter of construction of the Act, there was nothing in the Act or its preamble, interpreted in the light of the earlier relevant statutes Not only was the Constitution framed in the light of the Preamble but the Preamble was ultimately settled in the light of the Constitution.
Archived from the original PDF on 9 September Palkhivala on Menzies J’s judgment:. When the case was placed before the Constitutional bench, it referred this case to a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned Constitutional amendments.
A preamble may be used for other reasons to limit the scope of certain expressions or to explain facts or introduce definitions. Four judges did not sign: The building of a welfare State is the ultimate goal of every Government but that does not mean that in order to build a welfare State, human freedoms have to suffer a total destruction.
But however grave the issues may be, the answer must depend on the interpretation of the words in Articleread in accordance with the principles of interpretation which are applied to the interpretation of a Constitution given by the people to themselves.
Union of India  2 S. The first is Article 31 4. Appellate Assistant Commissioner A. This proviso shall cease to have effect on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation published in the Gazette. Part II dealt with “Citizenship”. The suggestion was accepted by the Assembly and further consideration of the Preamble was held over.
sttate As originally enacted, Article 1 read as follows:. Under Article the Governor is enabled to suggest the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Wikipedia
When the Constituent Assembly has completed its labours, His Majesty’s Government will recommend to Parliament such action as may be necessary for the cession of sovereignty to the Indian people, subject kesavabanda to two matters which are mentioned in the statement and which, we believe are not controversial, namely, adequate provision for the protection of the minorities paragraph 20 of the statement and willingness to conclude a treaty with His Majesty’s Government to cover matters arising out of the transfer of power paragraph 22 of the statement P.
Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section 4 of Section 29any question proposed for decision by either Chamber shall be determined by a kesavaanda of votes of the Senators or Members, as the case may be, present and voting. This page was last edited on 13 Novemberat Archived from the original PDF on 3 December Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the rights under Article 19 in respect of various matters.
A bribery tribunal, of which there may be any number, is composed of three members selected from a panel Section 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. These cases raise grave issues. Counsel said that they could vvs give an exhaustive catalogue of the basic features, but sovereignty, the republican form of government, the federal structure and the fundamental rights were some of the features.
According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions.
This provision was intended to protect legislation dealing with agrarian reforms.
Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala
This articles shows the care with which, the circumstances in which, fundamental rights can be restricted or abrogated were contemplated and precisely described.
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”. Articleas originally enacted, read as follows:. The above brief summary of the work of the Advisory Committee and the Minorities Sub-Committee shows that no one ever contemplated that fundamental rights appertaining to the minorities would be liable to be abrogated by an amendment of the Constitution.
It may be that these observations are obiter but these deserve our careful consideration, coming as they do from the Judicial Committee.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
Seervai, the power of amendment given by Article kesavanandqread with Articles 2 and 3, ArticleFifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule, is a limited power limited to certain provisions of the Constitution, while the power under Article is not limited. Statf Commonwealth 74 C. Archived copy as title. Similarly, Article provides that the President may specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State.
The guarantee of fundamental rights extends to numerous rights and it could not have been intended that all of them would remain completely unalterable even if Article 1. But I propose to refer to them, as Shri A.