Skip to main content

KESAVANANDA BHARATHI VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973)

 


                 KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973)


INTRODUCTION 

The case of Kesavananda Bharati is viewed as one of the main landmark decisions of our nation characterizing the doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.The doctrine says that the Parliament of the nation has limitless ability to correct the constitution subject to the condition that such revision ought not acquire change the essential construction of the Constitution, similar to the basic privileges of residents. Through the current case, the Supreme Court has cautiously deciphered the doctrine and investigates when a specific change is said to abuse the essential design of the Constitution of India. For has overruled the past choice of the court in the Golaknath case and set a restriction on the wide force of the parliament on amending the constitution.

FACTS

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the Kerala seer from Edneer Mutt whose property privileges case in the Supreme Court , tested the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, scrutinizing the Kerala government's endeavours, under two-state land change acts, to force restrictions on the administration of its (mutt) property. Bharati additionally tested three Constitutional changes - the 24th, 25th and 26th revisions - presented by the Indira Gandhi government.

ISSUES IN THE CASE

 Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is constitutionally valid or not?

 Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is constitutionally valid or not?

 What is the extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the constitution?

JUDGEMENT

It was held by the Supreme Court by a greater part of 7:6 that Parliament can alter any arrangement of the Constitution to satisfy its financial commitments ensured to the residents under the Preamble subject to the condition that such correction won't change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court maintained the 24th Constitutional Amendment completely yet the first and second piece of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was viewed as intra vires and ultra vires individually. It was seen by the court corresponding to the powers of the Parliament to correct the Constitution that it was an inquiry that was left unanswered on account of Golaknath. The solution to the inquiry was found in the Bharathi case and it was reasoned by the court that the Parliament has the ability to correct the Constitution to the degree that such alteration doesn't change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was set somewhere around the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be trailed by the Parliament while amending the arrangements of the Constitution.



CONCLUSION

Esteemed jurist and illustrious advocate Nani Palkhivala and the seven judges on the majority bench in Keshavantha Bharathi Case believed that by issuing this decision, they had protected Indian democracy, for which our revered ancestors had fought so valiantly. The most significant result of the freedom struggle was democracy, which gave ordinary citizens who were most oppressed the power and rights. If the bench had ruled differently, the rights and authority for which our esteemed freedom fighters battled so valiantly would have withered away. Thus, this momentous judgement upheld the constitutional values, strengthened the foundation of the Constitution and restored the confidence of the common people in the judiciary and in a democracy. The Kesavanand Bharti decision forms the most powerful and binding precedent in the history of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine is used to determine the constitutional validity of any amendment or act of the Parliament. According to former Chief Justice of India Sarv Mittra Sikri, the following elements constitute the basic structure of the Constitution or fundamental features of the Constitution, or what was laid down as the Basic Structure Doctrine:

1) Supremacy of the Constitution

2) Republican and democratic form of government

3) Secular character of the Constitution

4) Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary

5) Federal character of the Constitution.

In simple words, the Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule that states that certain provisions of the Constitution that are so fundamental to the values, objectives and sole of the Constitution cannot be amended under any circumstances.


By,

Asha Sebastian.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree