Kesavananda Bharti Case 1973
▪️Issue/dispute at the core:
1. Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala land reforms legislation in 1970, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property.
2.It was challenged under Article 26, regarding the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
Constitutional and legislative provisions involved:
1.Article 368 & Article 32: Whether the Indian Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights?
Upto which extent parliament can amend constitution?
▪️Judgment delivered:
✅Preamble is a part of Constitution
✅Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitations.
✅ Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues and interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.
✅Parliament in the exercise of constituent power can amend any provision of the Constitution. There are no express limitations to the power of amendment. The power to amend is wide and unlimited. The power to amend means the power to add, alter or repeal any provision of the Constitution.
✅Neither the Constitution nor an amendment of the Constitution can be or is law within the meaning of Article 13.
✅Supreme Court deduced the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ - It implies that though Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot in any manner interfere with the features so fundamental to the Constitution without which the Constitution would be spiritless.
▪️Impact of the Judgment:
✅Kesavananda Bharati case overruled Golaknath case judgment with regard to the power to amend the Constitution.
✅ All the amendments to the Constitution were subjected to the test of ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine.
✅The government to undo the implications of Kesavananda Bharati case. The government enacted the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, giving ‘unlimited power to the Parliament to amend the Constitution.’ It also provided that ‘validity of no constitutional amendment shall be called in question in any court on any ground’.
✅The Supreme Court held that the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of grand and novel vision expressed in the preamble. In fact, the Preamble was relied on in imposing the implied limitations on amendment under the Article 368. Further, in S R Bommai Case the Supreme Court reiterated that Preamble indicates basic structure of the Constitution.
#revision_notes
#mains
#prelims
#Judgements
