Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Aviation Law
 Bangladesh Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Pakistan laws
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.


Published : February 19, 2013 | Author : shashanktyagi
Category : Case Laws | Total Views : 4935 | Rating :

shashank tyagi GNLU Gandhinagar LL.M. UGC-NET Dec2011

Equivalent Citation: AIR1973SC1461, (1973)4SCC225, [1973]SuppSCR1

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru

State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges:
1. S. M. Sikri, C.J.
2. A. N. Grover, J.
3. A. N. Ray, J.
4. D. G. Palekar,J.
5. H. R. Khanna, J.
6. M. Shelat, J.
7. K. K. Mathew, J.
8. K. S. Hegde, J.
9. M. H Beg, J.
10. P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
11. S. N. Dwivedi, J.
12. A. K. Mukherjea, J.
13. Y. V. Chandrachud, J.

Position prior to Kesavananda’s case
•Land Reforms enacted in various states for keeping the electoral promise of implementing the socialistic goals.

•The First and Fourth amendments of 1951 and 1952.
•Contention: The aforesaid amendments violative of art 13(2).

The Golaknath Verdict
IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643

•The validity of Constitution (seventeenth amendment) Act, 1964 which included in 9th schedule, The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act 10 of 1953) and the Mysore Land Reforms Act(Act 10 of 1962) as amended by Act 14 of 1965.
•Contention: Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh wrongly decided.
•SC held that art 368 merely laid down the amending procedure.
•Amending power arose from other articles- 245,246 and 248.
•Any amendment be deemed law under art. 13(2)
•Concept of implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution invoked.
Article 13, expressed this limitation on the powers of Parliament.
•‘Basic structure' introduced for the first time by M.K. Nambiar

Post Golaknath Position
•Private member's bill tabled by Barrister Nath Pai seeking to restore the supremacy of Parliament's power introduced; couldn’t be passed.
•Nationalisation of banks and abolition of privy purses.
•The battle about the supremacy of Parliament vis-à-vis the power of the courts to interpret and uphold the Constitution.
•Dissolution of the Lok Sabha and calling of a snap poll.
•Eight of the ten manifestos in the 1971 elections called for changes in the Constitution in order to restore the supremacy of Parliament.
•Spate of amendments made between July 1971 and June 1972; Several curbs on the right to property passed

Kesavananda Bharati’s Case
•Six Writ petitions challenging the validity of 24th ,25th & 29th Amendment Acts of the Constitution.
•Writ petition No 135 of 1970:enforcement of Fundamental Right of the petitioner under Article 25,26,14.19(1)(f) and 31.
•Kerala land Reform Act 1963, as amended by Kerala Land Reform (Amendment) Act 1969 to be declared unconstitutional , ultra vires & void ; appropriate writ or order to be issued during the pendency of the petition.
• During the Pendency of the writ petition the Kerala Reforms Act 1971 was passed.
•Kunjukutty Vs State of Kerala, upheld decision in Narayan Nair Vs State of Kerala- certain sections of the Act struck down.
•25th Amendment- the word 'amount' substituted for the word 'compensation' in Clause (B) of Article 31.
•29th Amendment-put the two Acts, in the Ninth Schedule.
•An application for urging additional grounds made; application allowed.
• The case was placed before the Constitutional bench, it referred this case to a larger bench; Larger bench of 13 judges constituted.
•The verdict found in eleven separate judgments.
•Majority view delivered by the then Chief Justice Sikri..
•Minority view delivered by Justice A.N. Ray.

Issues involved:
•Is the provision of the Art 368 of the Constitution wide enough to amend all the provisions of the constitution including the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution?
•Are the 24th ,25th and 29th Amendments of the Constitution valid?
•Was Golak Nath’s Case correctly decided by the Court?

Is the provision of the Art. 368 of the Constitution wide enough to amend all the provisions of the constitution including the Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution?
•Question whether art 368 has the ‘power’ to amend the Constitution?
•Procedure laid down for amendment.
•The intention is not to use the word "amendment" in the widest sense; interpreted as per preamble
•Fundamental rights would remain in substance as they are not be amended out of existence.
•Appeal by the respondents to democratic principles and the necessity of having absolute amending power is fruitless.
•“Amendment of this Constitution" - any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble; fundamental rights cannot be abrogated but reasonable abridgements of fundamental rights can be effected in the public interest.

Are the 24th ,25th and 29th Amendments of the Constitution valid?
Validity of 24th Amendment
•Contention of Respondents: the 24th Amendment enlarges the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution; Parliament can confer additional powers of amendment on it.
•Finding: The meaning of the expression "Amendment of the Constitution" does not change when one reads the proviso. Article 368 can only be amended so as not to change its identity completely. Parliament cannot get rid of the true meaning of the expression "Amendment of the Constitution" so as to derive power to abrogate fundamental rights.
•Words “Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution" are designed to get rid of the argument that Article 248 and Entry 97 List I contains the power of amendment.
•“In exercise of its constituent power" only serves emphasize that it is not ordinary legislative power that Parliament is exercising under Article 368 but legislative power of amending the Constitution. Thus 24th Amendment is valid.

Validity of Sec. 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971
•Comparison of art 31(B) before and after the amendment.
•Substance of right to property under art 31.
•Parliament cannot empower legislatures to fix an arbitrary amount or illusory amount or an amount that virtually amounts to confiscation.
•Sec. 2 of Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 valid .

Validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971
Article 31C empowers State legislatures, subject to the condition laid down in Article 31C itself, to take away or abridge rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.
•Parliament cannot enable the legislatures to abrogate them. This provision enables legislatures to abrogate fundamental rights and therefore must be declared unconstitutional.
Article 368 of this Constitution itself provides that amendment may be initiated only by the introduction of a bill for the purpose in either House of Parliament. In other words, Article 368 does not contemplate any other mode of amendment by Parliament and it does not equally contemplate that Parliament could set up another body to amend the Constitution.
•Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act 1971 is void as it delegates power to legislatures to amend the Constitution.

Validity of 29th Amendment
•The device of Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule is bad insofar as it protects statutes even if they take away Fundamental Rights.
•Arguments- one object of Article 31-B is to prevent time-consuming litigation, which held up implementation of urgent reforms; challenging the validity of an enactment takes years before the validity is finally determined. Surely, this is not a good reason to deprive persons of their Fundamental Rights.
•The 29th Constitutional Amendment is ineffective .

Findings by court:
•The 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments Acts are valid.
•Golak Nath's case was wrongly decided and that an amendment to the Constitution was not a "law" for the purposes of Article 13; Golak Nath's case overruled.
•The power of amendment is plenary and can be used to amend all the articles of the constitution (including the Fundamental Rights).
• The power to amend does not include the power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution so as to change its identity.
• There are no inherent or implied limitations on the power of amendment under Article 368".
Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution; no unanimity of opinion about what appoints to that basic structure.

What is basic structure?
Sikri, C.J. : # Supremacy of the Constitution
# Republican and democratic form of government
# Secular character of the Constitution
# Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
# Federal character of the Constitution

Shelat, J. and Grover, J. : # The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy
# Unity and integrity of the nation
# Sovereignty of the country.

Hegde, J. and Mukherjea, J. : # Sovereignty of India
# Democratic character of the polity
# Unity of the country
# Essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens
# Mandate to build a welfare state

Jaganmohan Reddy, J. : # Sovereign democratic republic
# Justice - social, economic and political
# Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
# Equality of status and the opportunity.

Former Chief Justice K. Subba Rao : "The existence of a remote judicial control may only act as a brake against hasty and unreasonable legislative and executive action and as a form of guarantee to the public against instability. The stability of the Constitution stabilizes the State .

Position post Kesavananda’s case:
•Election Commission case; Thirty-ninth amendment was passed; The Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down cl.(4) of article 329-A,which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 .
•Declaration of a National Emergency in June 1975.
•Sardar Swaran Singh committee constituted; the government incorporated several changes to the Constitution including the Preamble, through the Forty-second amendment .
•A limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution- Y.V Chandrachud.
•Amendment to Article 31C unconstitutional as it destroyed the harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles which is an essential or basic feature of the Constitution.
•In Minerva Mills case the Supreme Court by majority by 4 to 1 majority struck down clauses(4) and (5) of the article 368 inserted by 42nd Amendment.

1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor

Most viewed articles in Case Laws category
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Scope of Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Bangalore Water Supply Case
ONGC v Saw Pipes
H.L.A Hart
Neha Bhasin v/s.Raj Anand Raj & Performer
Case Comment on Priyadarshini Matoo case
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
Indian Medical Association V V.P. Shantha
Vodafone Case
A Misinterpretation & Un-Called Construction Of Section 114 Of Evidence Act: Live-In-Relationship
Post Decisional Hearing: Development through Judicial Pronouncement and case study of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthi, 2005 (6) SCC 231
Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study
His Holiness Keshvananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala with reference to Agrarian Reforms in India
Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Most recent articles in Case Laws category
Mutual Consent Divorce -Made Easy
Lucknow development authority vs M.k. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787
Kuldip Nayar V. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 3127
Leopold Cafe and Stores v/s Novex Communications Pvt Ltd
Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors v. Commissioner of Police
Judgments on Bombay Rent Act
Basic Principles of Law of Injunctions in India
Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v UOI
Constitutional vires of laws relating to Organized Crime: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors
A benchmark in history of the Indian Constitutional Law
Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal
Afcons infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors

Article Comments

there are no comments...

Post Your Comments


Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes

BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit


Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.

Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
This articles talks about our reservation system and why it needed to be cross checked

» Total Articles
» Total Authors
» Total Views
» Total categories

Law Forum

Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers


India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3