Whether constitutional amendment as per article applicable to fundamental rights also? Whether 24th amendment act is valid? Whether section 2 a , 2 b and 3 of 25th amendment is valid? Whether 29th amendment act is valid? Before proceeding with the main task, judges review : what was decided in I. Golak Nath v.
|Published (Last):||7 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||15.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.36 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Download PDF According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws.
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. Whereas the founding fathers wanted the Constitution to be an adaptable document rather than a rigid framework for governance hence the provision of amendments were given in Article The Keshavananda Bharti case depicts the tussle between Articles 13 2 and The Kesavananda Bharati case was the culmination of a serious conflict between the judiciary and the government.
It is popularly known as fundamental rights case. 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 parameters regarding powers to amend the constitution. Background In order to understand the famous case of Kesavananda Bharathi, one must trace through the basics, events and cases which led to the historic decision.
The Act was challenged in High Court which held the act to be unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article A and 31 B was also added. Ninth Schedule was inserted which protects any legislation inserted within the schedule, from judicial review. Hence the buildup to Kesavananda was marked by a series of cases and decisions that set the stage for the case itself. Series of cases prior to Kesavananda Bharti case are following.
Union of India The constitutional validity of first amendment , which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The SC ruled out that the power to amend the Constitution under Article also included the power to amend fundamental rights and that the word "law" in Article 13 8 includes only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative powers and does not include Constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power.
Therefore, a Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes any of the fundamental rights. State of Rajasthan The validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which changed the definition of an "estate" given in article 31A of the Constitution so as to include therein lands held under ryotwari settlement in addition to other lands in respect of which provisions are normally made in land reform enactments.
The Amendment also added 44 additional State enactments relating to land reforms to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution in order to secure their constitutional validity and prevent them from being challenged before the judiciary on the ground that they are inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights. This was challenged on the ground that one of the acts inserted by the amendment in the 9th Schedule affected the petitioner on the basis that the amendment fell within the purview of Article Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 2 the case was rightly decided.
Amendment includes amendment to all provisions of the Constitution. It also added that Article merely lays down the procedure for the purpose of amendment. Further, the Court said that an amendment is a law under Article 13 2 of the Constitution of India and if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void.
Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed. Article does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure.
To nullify the Golaknath verdict, Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, laying down that its powers to amend the Constitution were unrestricted and unlimited. Finally all the issues related to it was challenged in Keshavanand Case. The Kesavananda case Under this Supreme Court declared 31 C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is basic structure and hence cannot be taken away. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v.
State of Punjab, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. As to what are these basic features, the debate still continues. Despite that, the right to private property, is more solid today, and yet not absolute, as it should be in a market economy. Conclusion This case upheld the changes in 24th amendment in Article and Article 13 of Indian Constitution by overruling Golaknath Judgment. It determined the fabric of Indian constitution which is still relevant and serving as Fundamental Rights case.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and The Basic Structure Doctrine
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Supreme Court of India Kesavananda Bharati Cj Shelat, J. Mukherjea, B.
Keshvananda Bharati v State of Kerala, (1973)
Download PDF According to the Constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make laws within their respective jurisdictions. This power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution vests in the judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. 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.