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: Yoramar Shaktijora
Country: Belarus
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 21 August 2013
Pages: 266
PDF File Size: 20.17 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.9 Mb
ISBN: 788-2-89858-191-5
Downloads: 67951
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Doulkree

Indira Gandhi [] 2 S. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kesavananda Bharati. Town Improvement Act, It is very unlikely that they contemplated, say, for instance, a monarchical form of government.

But he jhdgment the distinction when he observed: I may mention that Prof. In the absence of such consensus can it be held to be a majority judgment? 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”.

That this ratio is common in the opinions of seven Judges may be substantiated by the pure mechanical process of presenting excerpts from the opinions. In the earliest draft the Preamble was something formal kesavanana read: 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 jucgment those not present.

Articles 2 to 19 contain the Federal Republic’s Bill of Rights.

Kesavananda Bharati

In his preliminary note on the fundamental Rights, Sir B. Supreme Court of India.


It could “amend or repeal” any provision of the Constitution, which included Section 29 2 and Section 29 4 itself. The Courts could not, kesavananca 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.

The second question to be asked is: In view of the great variation of the phrases used all through the Constitution it follows that the word “amendment” must derive its colour from Article and the rest of the provisions of the Constitution. These passages show clearly that the Board in McCawley’s case took the view which commends itself to the Board in the present case, that a legislature has no power to ignore the conditions of law-making that are imposed by the instrument which itself regulates its powers to make law.

It expresses “what we had thought or dreamt for so long. These things are to be supplied either by conventions which we build up and by judicial decisions. The same rule has been applied to the provisions of this Constitution juegment this Court in State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors.

Eastern Book Company – Practical Lawyer

Ambedkar in fact reminded members of the Lok Sabha inthat continuous references in Parliament and the media to India being a secular state, did not reflect what the Constitution was intended to mean. You can help by adding to it. Apart from it, the judgement cleared the deck for complete legislative authority to amend any part of the Constitution except when the amendments judgmenh not in consonance with the basic features of the Constitution.

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.


Regarding the use which can be made of the preamble in interpreting an ordinary statute, there judgmenh no doubt that it cannot be used to modify the language if the language of the enactment is plain and clear.

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. And the uniform doctrine of the highest judicial authority has accordingly been, that it was the act of the people, and not of the states; and that it bound the latter, as subordinate to the people.

To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the preamble, Part III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights.

Return to Text 1 K. In the Kesavananda Bharati caselarger issues were involved.

Kesavananda Bharati – Wikipedia

The Union of India [] 2 S. From the illustrations he gives of what constitutes the kesavanandw structure of the Constitution he does not seem to make much of a distinction between what he calls basic structure and what the other learned Justices have referred to as essential features.

I quote the words of Chitty L. 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.