Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri Kesavananda Bharati, eminent jurist Nanabhoy Palkhivala and the seven. CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) of PETITIONER: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors RESPONDENT: State of Kerala and Anr DATE OF. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, , and ending.
|Published (Last):||12 October 2013|
|PDF File Size:||15.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.22 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Retrieved 11 August This Constitution is the Constitution which follows the Preamble. Fourthly, in any case Article is a complete code in itself and does not provide for any amendment being made in the bill after it has been introduced in the House.
Raj Narain Singh bharari.
Kesavananda Bharati – Wikipedia
The question, then, is one of construction and in the ultimate resort must be determined upon tht actual words used, read not in vacuo but as occurring in a single complex instrument, in which one part may throw light on another. It has the stamp of deep deliberation and is marked by precision. The hearing ended on March 22 ndand written submissions were filed by March 28 th. The Union of India  2 S.
Political machinations to overturn the verdict followed. 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. Regarding the amendment of the basic features of the Constitution, he observed: Inthe Supreme Court took an kesavanada view, in the Golak Nath case, that Parliament could not amend or alter any fundamental right.
The appointment of a Governor, conditions of service of a Governor, and the Constitution and functions of the Council of Ministers, and other provisions regarding the Ministers and the conduct of government business are not mentioned at all in the proviso to Article Seervai and the learned Attorney General. In his reply dated May 22,the Secretary of State observed: Nor is it reasonable cqse assume that the minds of all those legislators were in accord, or, as it is more tersely put in an American case.
In the United States the Declaration of Independence is sometimes referred to in determining Constitutional questions. The page judgment revealed a sharply divided court and, by a wafer-thin majority of 7: Such a Constitution can, indeed, be altered or amended by the legislature, if the regulating instrument so provides that if the terms of those provisions are compiled with and the alteration or amendment may include the change or abolition of those very provisions.
In February Swami Kesavananda Bharatisenior plaintiff and head of “Edneer Mutt” – a Hindu Mutt situated in Edneera village in Kasaragod district of Keralachallenged the Kerala government’s attempts, under two state land reform bharari, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.
In a statement circulated to members bahrati the Assembly on July 18, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru inter alia, observed that the Preamble was covered more or less by the Objectives Resolution which it was intended to incorporate in the final Constitution subject to some modification on account of the political changes resulting from partition. Part II dealt with “Citizenship”. In what is regarded as the finest advocacy that was heard in the Supreme Court, Palkhivala made an impassioned plea for not disturbing the earlier view.
It was expressly voted to be a part of the Constitution.
The case that saved Indian democracy
It has been said, no doubt, that the preamble is not a part of our Bhzrati. I may rely for this principle on kwsavananda following observations of the United States Supreme Court in Holmes v. In Sanjeevi Naidu v. The provisions of Sub-clauses cd and e can rightly be said to involve the federal structure and the rights of the States. Although there is a sharp conflict of opinion whether respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights is obligatory under the Charter see Oppenheim’s International Law; 8th ed.
Retrieved 3 August However, as I see it, the question whether Golak Kewavananda  2 S. He laid special importance on the issue of minorities. Let me now proceed to interpret Article Although the court upheld the basic structure doctrine by only the narrowest of margins, it has since gained widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent cases and judgments. Daphtary termed the incident as “the blackest day in the history of democracy”.
The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath v. 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”. At these meetings the sub- committee considered the interim proposals of the fundamental rights Sub-Committee in so far as these had a bearing on minority rights.
The sovereign character of the Constituent Assembly thus became automatic with the rapid march of events without any controversy, and the words in the Preamble “give to bharxti this Constitution” became appropriate. The result of a legislative action of a legislature cannot be other than ‘law’ and, therefore, it seems to me that the fact that the legislation deals with the amendment of a caxe of the Constitution would not make its result any the less a kesavannada.
In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution bhaati to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights? In accordance with this statement, declarations were issued by the Rulers or Rajpramukhs accepting the Constitution.
However, due to parallel efforts by bar and bench the 5 month long arguments did not go in vain. This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed, saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharati will always occupy a hallowed place in our constitutional history.
If it was the design that fundamental rights might be abrogated surely they would have expressly provided it somewhere. 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. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts.
I said in Spratt v.
It is education that clarifies our belief and faith and helps to strengthen our spirit of worship. Six judges held that bharwti amount will be subject to judicial scrutiny, six including Justice Khanna said the opposite.
Subject to these limitations, Parliament had the right to amend any and every provision of the Constitution. The legislature of each of the new Dominions shall have full power to make laws for that Dominion, including laws having extraterritorial operation. He also renders all possible support to literature, culture and art.