Scribd
Upload
52 views3 pages

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala, 1973

The Kesavananda Bharti case involved determining the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot amend or repeal the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. The basic structure includes features fundamental to the Constitution such as democracy, secularism, separation of powers. Therefore, the court established that it has the power to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure. This established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution at the expense of its basic features.

Uploaded by

Shivam Jadhav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
52 views3 pages

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala, 1973

The Kesavananda Bharti case involved determining the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot amend or repeal the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. The basic structure includes features fundamental to the Constitution such as democracy, secularism, separation of powers. Therefore, the court established that it has the power to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure. This established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution at the expense of its basic features.

Uploaded by

Shivam Jadhav
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalavaru vs.

State of Kerala,1973
ISSUE

One of the most praised cases ‘His Holiness Kesavnanda Bharti Sripadagalavaru versus
Province of Kerala, 1973 as chosen by a seat of 13 adjudicators. For this situation, the apex
court managed the issue – that whether the Parliament can correct any piece of the
Constitution and what was the cutoff to that power? After the phenomenal judgment of
Golaknath versus Province of Punjab, the urgent Parliament to pick up its lost
incomparability and self-governance passed arrangement of Amendments to by implication
overrule whatever was chosen for Golaknath’s situation. The Indira Gandhi government
returned in the lower house with gigantic lion’s share in 1971 races and afterwards passed the
24th Amendment in 1971, 25th Amendment in 1972 and 29th Amendment in 1972.
JUDGMENT

The seat by most of 7:6 overruled the dispute of the recommendation of law propounded in Golak Nath versus the
State of Punjab, 1967 and held that Constitutional revision isn’t ‘law’ inside the importance of Article 13 and that
however no piece of the Constitution, including Part III involving fundamental rights, was past the correcting power,
the essential structure of the Constitution couldn’t be annulled even by the constitutional change. It was battled that
what respects the fundamental structure, it will be chosen from case to case. Consequently, it was held that the
Judiciary can strike down a revision passed by the Parliament those contentions with the fundamental structure of the
Constitution. The court maintained the whole 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971, while the initial segment
of the 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972 intra vires and a second piece of the ultra vires act, was found. The
court that grasped social designing and gauged the interests of the two defendants held that neither one of the
parliaments has the ability to weaken the Constitution’s Basic Structure, nor would it be able to renounce the
command to make a government assistance state and an impartial society. In Golaknath, the court found that the
response to the issue was left unanswered. How much the intensity of Parliament is revised. Regulation OF BASIC
STRUCTURE was the reaction which the court deducted.
This teaching suggests that however, Parliament has the privilege to change the whole Constitution yet subject to the
condition that they can’t in any way meddle with the highlights so fundamental to this Constitution that without them
it would be spiritless. To comprehend the embodiment of this precept it is of significance to comprehend Hegde and
Mukherjeajj, who as they would like to think have perfectly clarified this Doctrine. As they would see it Indian
Constitution is definitely not a simple political report rather it is a social record dependent on a social way of
thinking.

You might also like