Kesavananda Bharati case summary

KESAVANANDA BHARATI Vs. STATE OF KERELA and ANR.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APRIL 24, 1973

CASE ON BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION

Facts of the case :

Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a Hindu Muth which was situated in Kerela. Kerela government passes two land reforms legislations namely ;
  1. The Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,1969
  2. The Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,1971
Under these legislations, the land of the muth was overtaken by the government. Thus Kesavananda Bharati filled the writ petition in the honourable court for the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the constitution and for declaring the above legislations unconstitutional.

Contention of the parties :

Respondent : The respondent argued that the parliament have unlimited amending power under article 368 of the constitution. It can fully ammend fundamental rights. It can also go to the extent of replacing democratic form of government with one party rule.

Petitioner : The petitioner argued that power of parliament is much more limited. The Constitution makers provides for the fundamental rights of the citizens so that each one can enjoy freely and be protected from the future tyranny of any group of representative people. It was also argued that if the Article 31C is valid, then its not the Constitution, but the parliament which will decide that how much freedom will be given to the citizen. 

JUDGEMENT

The 13 Judge Constitutional bench was constituted to decide upon this landmark judgement. It is the highest number of judges on bench till date.
The court observed that Constitution is supreme and not the parliament. Parliament has unlimited power to amend the constitution untill and unless it does not violate the basic structure of Constitution. Thus the court overturned the judgement of IC GOLAKNATH case. 
By this judgement the satisfy the dual principal i.e maintains the supremacy of the constitution and also preserving the parliamentary system by allowing the amending power to parliament even in the fundamental rights. 
SIKRI S.M. CJI clearly stated that fundamental rights in part III of the constitution cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgement of these rights could be effected in public interest.
The court however does not consider Right to Property as a Fundamental right under basic structure of the constitution.
The court also clarify that preamble is a part of the constitution and themes in the preamble should always be restored. 
That court also clarify the stance on seperation of power and stated that the power of all the organs of the government is clearly defined by the Constitution and this is also the basic structure of Constitution and thus power to each organ cannot be changed or be transferred to some other organ. Thus, the honourable court concluded that in any case the power of judicial review can not be either stopped or taken back by any provision. 



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more