LexHIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALAVARU versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARAT! SRIPADAGALA VAR U u. STATE OF KERALA April 24, 1973 (S. M. SIKRI, C. J., J. M. SHELAT, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, D. G. PALEK.AR, H. R. KHANNA, IC K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG, S. N. DWIVEDI, A. K. MUKHERJEA AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950-Artick 368 before Constitution (Twenty Fourth) Amendment Act, 197!-Nature and scope of the amending power. Article 13(2)-'Law' in 13(2) if includes amendment of the Constitution- Distinction between legislative power and constituent power. Article 368-"Amendment" meaning of-"Amcndmcnt" if includes the power to abrogate the Constitution-If includes the power to alter the basic struc- ture or frame-work of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights-If amendment can take away or abridge the rights guaranteed in Part III. Fundamental Righu--If inalienable natur31 rights so as to operate as restric- tion on the amending power. Implied and inherent limitations-Power of amendment if subject to inherent or implied limitations. Preamble-Nature-Preamble, if operates as a source of implied limitation on the power of amendment. Constitution (Twenty Faurth) Amendment Act 1971-Validity of-Amend· mrot if enlargement of the limits of the Amending power. Article 368-lf there are inherent or implied limitations in the article .. amended. Constitution (Twenty Fifth) Amendment Act, 1971-Validity of. Section 2(a) & (b)-Substitution of 'amount' for 'compensation'-Exclusion of article 19(l)(f) to law in article 31(2)~1£ abrogates the basic structure of the Constitution-Meaning of 'amount'-Scope of judicial review of adequacy. Section 3-lntroduction of new asticle 31C-Nature and object of the articlo- Article if abrogates the essential features of the Constitution-If amounts to dele- gation of amending power to state legislatures-Effect of Declaration-Nexus of law under the article to the directives in article 39(b) and (c), if subjedl to judicial review. Directive Principles of State Policy-Importance in the constitutional schcmc- Rclation with fundamental rights. Property, right to-Nature of the right. 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] Supp. s.c.R. Constttutron (Twenty Ninth) Amendment Act, 1972-Validity of-Article 31B and 31A-lf interrelated. Judicial Revietu-Limits of-Place of judicial review in the constitutional scheme. ·, Interpretation-Rules of Constitutional interpretation-Constituent Assembly Debates, relevancy of. The question whether the fundamental rights set out in Part III of the C:On- stitution could be taken away or abridged by amendment of the Constitution was first considered by this Court in Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, [1952] S.C.R. 89. In Sankari Prasad the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, was challenged. The First Amendment made changes in articles 15 and 19 of the Constitution and inserted articles 31A and 31B. The principal contention was that the First Amendment in so far as it purported to take away or abridge the rights conferred by Part _III of the Consti- tution fell within the prohibition of article 13(2) of the Constitution. The Court unanimously held that the word 'law' in article 13(2) was relatable to exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution and that the terms of article 368 were general to empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception. The question came up again in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 938, wherein the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act 1964, was challenged. The majority view in Sa;jan Singh was that article 368 plainly and unambiguously meant amendment of all provisions of the Constitution and that the ward •iaw' in article 13(2) did not take in Constitution Amendments. Thereafter, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Court, six against live, hdd that an amendment of the Constitution was 'law' within the meaning of article 13(2); therefore, if an amendment took away or abridged the fundamental rights it was void, that the Constitution First1 Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments abridged fundamental rights but were valid on the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling or acquiescence and that Parliament had no power from the date of the decision to amend any of the provisions of Part III so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. One of the amendments af
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.