May 19, 2020

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) of PETITIONER: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors RESPONDENT: State of Kerala and Anr DATE OF. The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, whose 40th Exactly forty years ago, on April 24, , Chief Justice Sikri and The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Kesavananda . What the Supreme Court faced in was a struggle for supremacy.

Author: Dourg Kigagami
Country: Djibouti
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 21 December 2016
Pages: 232
PDF File Size: 14.96 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.78 Mb
ISBN: 855-4-73450-398-4
Downloads: 52600
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shagul

Article 45 directs that “the State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free compulsory education for all bharatk until they complete the age of fourteen years. That this form of extrinsic aid to the interpretation of statutes is not admissible has been generally accepted in England, and the same rule has been observed in the casee of Indian statutes-see Administrator-General of Bengal v.

Why Kesavanand Bharti Case of 1973 is famous?

At the same time, the Court also upheld the constitutionality of first provision of Article 31 cwhich implied that any constitutional amendment seeking keasvananda implement the Directive Principles, which does not affect the ‘Basic Structure’, shall not be subjected to judicial review.

I still think so.

I respectfully adopt the reasoning of Lord Greene in construing the expression “the amendment of the Constitution. Archived from the original on The learned Judge held that the essential elements of the basic structure of the Constitution are reflected in its preamble and that some of the important features of the Constitution are justice, freedom of expression and equality of status and opportunity.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Wikipedia

To start with, there was the bench size: The same rule has been applied to the provisions of this Constitution by this Court in State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors.

This case had serious political overtones with several heated exchanges between N. State of Bihar v. At first glance, it seemed that the government had won. But, I think, that if upon a comparison of the preamble with the broad features of the Constitution it would appear that the preamble is an epitome of those features or, to put it differently if these features are an amplification or concretisation of the concepts set out in the preamble it may have to be considered whether the preamble is not a part of the Constitution.


The case that saved Indian democracy – The Hindu

The question, bhartai, is one of construction and in the ultimate resort bhaarti 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. I kesaavananda unable bhxrati infer this deduction from these articles. The draft Preamble was considered by the Assembly on October 17, According to the learned Judge, the provisions of Article 31d, as they henconferring power on Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws for giving effect to the principles specified in Clauses b and c of Article 39, altogether abrogated the right given by Article 14 and were for that reason unconstitutional.

According to the Hon’ble Judge, although it was permissible to the Parliament, in exercise of its amending power, to effect changes so as to meet the requirements of changing conditions, it was not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern. The tragic review was over but it did irreversible damage to the reputation of Chief Justice A.

Seervai and the learned Attorney General. 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.

While moving the resolution for acceptance of the Objectives Resolution, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said:. A questionnaire was drafted to enquire about political, economic, religious, educational and cultural safeguards. The State of Madras [] S. He is a Carnatic and Hindusthani vocalist and master of all sections of Yakshaganathe renowned art form and also has penned many devotional songs and dramas.

In other words all these safeguards were considered. The Commonwealth [] 45 A. In order to fully appreciate the decision of the Privy Council it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Ceylon Independence Order in Council,hereinafter referred to as the Ceylon Constitution. But buarati court did not have that many judges to devote the considerable time the hearings would need, so new appointments had to be made. And may I, Sir, also with all respect, suggest to you and to the House that, when the time comes for the passing of this Resolution let it be not done in the formal way by the raising of hands, but much more solemnly, by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew.

Five Judges held that Article 13 2 was inapplicable bharai Acts amending the Constitution. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kesavananda Bharati.


Framing of Indian Vase It could “amend or repeal” any provision of the Constitution, which included Section 29 2 and Section 29 4 itself. A distinction has necessarily to be drawn between rights which are justiciable and rights which are merely intended as a guide and directive objectives to state policy.

It is true that Mitter, J.

CooperMadhavrao Scindia and Golak Nath. But it would indeed be strange that rights which are considered to be fundamental and which include one which is guaranteed by the Constitution vide Article 32 should be more easily capable of being abridged or restricted than any of the matters referred to in the proviso to Article some of which are perhaps less vital than fundamental rights.

The Constitution gives so many assurances in Part III that it would be difficult to think that they were the play-things of a special majority. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

In other words, the expression “Amendment of kesavanansa Constitution” does not include a revision of the whole Constitution.

In the context of Article 13″law” must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary kesavaanda power and not amendments to the Constitution made in the exercise of constituent power with the result that Article 13 2 does not affect amendments made under Article 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”.

Sikri overcame these obstacles bharait 66 days of oral arguments ended on March Article 30 2 prohibits the State from discriminating against any educational institution, in granting aid to educational institutions, on the ground kesavaananda it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

It was held that this was valid legislation, cade it must be treated as pro tanto an alteration of the Constitution, which was neither fundamental in the sense of being beyond change nor so constructed as to require any special legislative process to pass upon the topic dealt with.