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: Faejinn Musho
Country: Montenegro
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 12 July 2014
Pages: 328
PDF File Size: 9.14 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.88 Mb
ISBN: 566-7-87439-969-1
Downloads: 34464
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shalkis

kessavananda All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from May Articles with permanently dead external links Webarchive template wayback links CS1 maint: Article 13 is then on par with Article 5 of the American Federal Constitution in its immutable prohibition as long as it stands.

Even in their absence if any of the fundamental rights was infringed by any legislative enactment, the Court has always the power to declare the enactment, to the extent it transgresses the limits, invalid.

Kesavananda Bharati – Wikipedia

The word ‘amendment’ could not possibly embrace the right to abrogate the pivotal features and the fundamental freedoms and therefore, that part of the basic structure could not be damaged or destroyed. Cooray, reads the obiter dicta in Bribery Commissioner v.

Category Index Outline Portal. Article deals with the summoning of the Ve of Legislature and its provisions are similar to that of Article. Under the proviso this period can be extended while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation for a period not exceeding in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.

There follow bc and dwhich set out further entrenched religious and racial matters, which shall not be keerala subject of legislation. If Article 31C is valid, they say, hereafter Parliament and State Legislatures and not the Fs, will determine how much freedom is good for the citizens. While oof Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, nothing in Article 19 shall restrict the power of the State as defined in Part III to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would but for the provisions contained in that Part be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have fs as soon as the Proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect.


Although the Government has not been able to fulfil it completely, it cannot be compelled by any court of law to provide such education. Seervai on the last 3 cases just cited. Apart from the rule which excludes the preamble generally from consideration in statutory interpretation, it is clear that, when all is said and done, the preamble at keraal most is, only a statw of the intention which the Act’ seeks to effect; and it is a recital of a present i.

It is true every provision is prima facie amendable under Article but this does not solve the problem before us. No State can therefore be formed, admitted or set up by law under Article 4 by the Parliament which has no effective legislative, executive and judicial organs. In Article it is provided that the above mentioned reservation of seats and special representation to certain classes shall cease on the expiry of a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution.


In other words they did not contemplate a monarchy being set up in India or there being no President. Bangladesh 41 DLR App.

Article 47 lays down as one of the duties of the State to raise the standard of living and to improve public health, and to bring about prohibition. In Article again, the two words are joined together to give a wider power.

Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala

This page was last edited on 27 Decemberat Archived from the original PDF on 3 December Union of India, Bharayi.

Here, the comprehensive expression “repeal or amend” gives power to have a completely new Act different from an existing act of Parliament. 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 process of interpretation as the years go on ought not to be allowed to dim or to whittle down the provisions of the original contract upon which the federation was founded, nor is it legitimate that any judicial construction of the Provisions of Sections 91 and 92 should impose a new and different contract upon the federating bodies.

It is in that spirit that I venture vd place this Resolution before the House and it is in that spirit that I trust the House will receive it and ultimately pass it.

Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala

Under Article the Governor is enabled to suggest the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message.

C OF Appellants: After the unprecedented judgment of Golaknath v.

State of Punjab Article 2 reads:. The language of Article is plain enough to show that the action of Parliament in amending the Constitution is a legislative act like one in exercise of its normal legislative power. The Indira Gandhi govt. Palekar, H R KhannaA. Sri Swamiji is a patron of education, Kannada culture and arts, including Yakshaganamusic and dramas. To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the preamble, Part III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights.

The question arose out of the following facts.

Later on July 12,the special sub-committee again postponed consideration of the matter.