Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala () Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (AIR SC ) . Champakam Dorairajan vs State of Madras. Issue. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) OF Appellants: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Anr. Decided. 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.
| Author: | Vigis Mezigrel |
| Country: | Burma |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Environment |
| Published (Last): | 10 January 2006 |
| Pages: | 180 |
| PDF File Size: | 15.51 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 5.47 Mb |
| ISBN: | 723-7-19533-169-6 |
| Downloads: | 89906 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Shazilkree |
I come to the same conclusion by another line of reasoning. Oc basic principles of construction of the Constitution were definitively enunciated by the Court in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. In Sajjan Singh v. If so, it does not admit of any limitations.
Kesavananda Bharati
I have mentioned them only to give another example. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution.
Ambedkar but he made it clear at p. As far as kerapa Vice- President is concerned, the States have been given no say whether there shall be a Vice- President or kesavvananda about the method of his election, etc. Article 25 1 provides that “subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
These cases raise grave issues.
In the Preamble to the International Covenant on Economic and Social and Kesavqnanda Rightsinalienability of rights is indicated in the first Para as follows: Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted”. I may here mention that while our fundamental rights and directive principles were being fashioned and approved of by the Constituent Assembly, on December 10, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is true that there is no complete definition of the word “law”‘ in the article but it is significant that the definition does not seek to exclude Constitutional amendments which it would have been easy to indicate in the definition by adding “but shall not include an amendment of the Constitution”.
Why were Kesavananea 52 and 53 not mentioned in the proviso to Article if the intention was that the States would have a say as to the federal structure of the country? 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 kwsavananda 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.
Eminent Jurist, legendary advocate and co-counsel in Kesavananda Bharati Case, Nani Palkhiwala and the seven judges at majority bench were of the opinion that through this judgment they have saved Indian democracy which our respected ancestors fought so hard for.
The Federal Court and the Supreme Court of India have recognised and applied this principle in other cases:. Article enables the President by order to make exceptions and modifications in the provisions of Article to Thus there is secured a freedom from political control, and it is a punishable offence to attempt directly or indirectly to influence any decision of the Commission Section The Judicial Committee held that the members kesavanxnda the Tribunal held judicial office and were judicial officers within Section 55 of the Ceylon Constitution.
State of Kerala, A. I may set out here the observations of the Judicial Committee regarding McCawley’s case.
It is in the latter sense that in my view of the matter, implications have a place in the interpretation of the Constitution: Palkhivala that there is a distinction between the Indian Constitution Statute and the Constitution of India.
The Constitution indicates three modes of amendments and assuming that the provisions of Article confer power on Parliament to amend the Constitution, it will still have to be considered whether as long as the preamble stands unamended, that power can be exercised with respect to any of the basic features of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. Article 3 and 4 dealt with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.
Held that the Constitution of India which is essentially a social rather stste a political document, is founded on a social philosophy and iesavananda such has two kesavanajda features basic and circumstantial. Article is important.
Considering that, in kedala with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is kesavaannda foundation of freedom, justice and sttae in the world. Article 50 directs that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
An attempt has been made in this report to enumerate those safeguards which are matters of common knowledge, such as representation in kerlaa, that is, joint versus separate electorate. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could kedavananda be trusted to act responsibly was perceived to be unprecedented.
Emphasis supplied The Federal system itself is the foundation of the restraint upon the use of the power to control the State It is obvious that none of the above provisions is suitable for enforcement by the courts. Does the fact that the Constitution is “federal” carry with it implications limiting the law-making powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth with regard to the States?
That report dealt with justiciable fundamental rights; these rights, whether applicable to all citizens generally or to members of minority communities in particular offer a most valuable safeguard for minorities over a comprehensive field of social life.
In other words, the expression “Amendment of this Constitution” does not include a revision of the whole Constitution. The method of construing statutes that I prefer is not to take particular words and attribute to them a sort of prima facie meaning which kesavaannda may have to displace or modify.
Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala
Article 20 protects a person from being convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence or to be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. This proviso shall cease to have effect on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation published in the Gazette.
The Commonwealth [] 74 C. Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
SUPREME COURT IN 1973 IN KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA
It had three significant provisions, which show the intention of the Constitution-makers regarding property rights. To hold this would mean prima facie that the most solemn parts of our Constitution stand on the same footing as any other provision and even on a less firm ground than one on which the articles mentioned in the proviso stand. Article 55 prescribes the manner of election of the President. The suggestion kesavahanda accepted by the Assembly and further consideration of the Preamble was held over.
Sri Keshavananda Bharathi Swamiji is spreading the religion and culture in equal earnest.