Constitutional Law - Rameshwar Prasad
NATURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
AIR 1973 SC 1461
[The Supreme Court laid down the Theory of Basic Structure in this case. According to this theory, some of the provisions of the
Constitution of India form its basic structure which are not amendable by Parliament by exercise of its constituent power under Article 368.
See also Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299;
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Sanjeev
Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 239; L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.]
In this case, the validity of 24th, 25th and 29th amendments to the Constitution of India was challenged. The main question related to the nature, extent and scope of amending power of the Parliament under the Constitution. The views of the majority were as follows:
(1) L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (which had held that fundamental rights were beyond the amending powers of Parliament) was overruled;
(2) The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 (giving power to
Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution) was valid;
(3) Article 368, as amended, was valid but it did not confer power on the
Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution; The court, however, did not spell out in any exhaustive manner as to what the basic structure/framework was except that some judges gave a few examples.
(4) The amendment of Article 368(4) excluding judicial review of a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional.
(5) The amendment of Article 31C containing the words “and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy” was held invalid;
S.M. SIKRI C.J. - 90. This Preamble, and indeed the Constitution, was drafted in the light and direction of the Objectives Resolution
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
AIR 1973 SC 1461
[The Supreme Court laid down the Theory of Basic Structure in this case. According to this theory, some of the provisions of the
Constitution of India form its basic structure which are not amendable by Parliament by exercise of its constituent power under Article 368.
See also Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299;
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; Sanjeev
Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 239; L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.]
In this case, the validity of 24th, 25th and 29th amendments to the Constitution of India was challenged. The main question related to the nature, extent and scope of amending power of the Parliament under the Constitution. The views of the majority were as follows:
(1) L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (which had held that fundamental rights were beyond the amending powers of Parliament) was overruled;
(2) The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 (giving power to
Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution) was valid;
(3) Article 368, as amended, was valid but it did not confer power on the
Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution; The court, however, did not spell out in any exhaustive manner as to what the basic structure/framework was except that some judges gave a few examples.
(4) The amendment of Article 368(4) excluding judicial review of a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional.
(5) The amendment of Article 31C containing the words “and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy” was held invalid;
S.M. SIKRI C.J. - 90. This Preamble, and indeed the Constitution, was drafted in the light and direction of the Objectives Resolution