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: Volmaran Tosida
Country: Czech Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 3 February 2007
Pages: 189
PDF File Size: 20.74 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.76 Mb
ISBN: 248-4-84261-270-6
Downloads: 60200
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akizil

Union of India — Delhi Ridge Case.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Wikipedia

In Article 5″all regulations made under the proviso to Clause 3 ” can be modified “whether by way of repeal or amendment” as both Houses of Parliament or the House or both Houses of the Legislature of the States may make during the session in which they are so laid. His Honour, when Chief Justice, repeated this observation in Lamshed v. Town Merala Act, This acts as a corresponding limitation on the legislative power of the Provincial or State legislatures.


The President or Speaker or other person presiding shall not vote in the first instance but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes. These principles were commonly termed as Basic Structure. According to him, the speeches of Dr.

Kesavananda Bharati

The Kesavananda case According to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgement of those rights could be effected in public interest. The second provision, Article 31 5 awas designed to protect existing legislation dealing with compulsory acquisition.

Article 22 4 deals with Preventive Detention. There is buarati doubt that it is not intended that the whole Constitution could be repealed. Ambiguity of the Judgment. To implement and fortify these supreme purposes set forth in the preamble, Part III of our Constitution has provided for us certain fundamental rights.


Attorney-General for Canada A.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The major findings of the court are as follows: The Constitution gives so many assurances in Part III that it would be difficult to think that they were the play-things of a special majority.

The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rightsin pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.

The draft Preamble was considered by the Assembly on October 17, The Judicial Committee held that the members of the Tribunal held judicial office and were judicial officers within Section 55 of the Ceylon Constitution. The Advisory Committee met on February 27, to constitute various sub-committees including the Minorities Sate.

Again, in Article 2the word “amendment” has been used in a limited sense. It is true that Mitter, J.

But the India context is slightly different. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

I may here notice an argument that the enactment of Articles and showed that the fundamental rights were not treated as inalienable rights.

The 29 th Amendment passed in the year had the effect of inserting The Kerala Land Reforms Act into IX Schedule which means sstate is outside kesavnaanda scope of judicial scrutiny. The only emendation that I would venture is that I would prefer not to say “making implications”, because our avowed task is simply the revealing or uncovering of implications that are already there.


Kesavananda Bharati – Wikipedia

In some respects the Commonwealth was placed in a position of supremacy, as the national interest required, but it would be inconsistent with the very basis of the federation that the Commonwealth’s powers should extend to reduce the States to such a position of subordination that their very existence, or at least their capacity to function effectually as independent units, would be dependent upon the manner in which the Commonwealth exercised its powers, rather than on the legal limits of the powers themselves.

Article 28 deals with freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions. No other Constitution in the world is like ours.

Commonwealth of Australia A. It is possible now to state summarily what is the essential difference between the McCawley case and this case. First, the power of amending the Constitution provided for under Article was conferred not on Keralx but on the two Houses of Parliament as designated body and, therefore, the provisional Parliament was not competent to exercise that power under Article 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 differently if these features are an amplification or concretisation of the concepts set out in the preamble it bhaeati have to be considered whether the preamble is not a part of the Constitution.