Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Court Full case name Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. State of Kerala and Anr. Citation(s) (1973) 4 SCC 225 Holding There are certain principles within the framework of Indian Constitution which are inviolable and hence cannot be amended by the Parliament. These principles were commonly termed as Basic Structure.

Case opinions Majority Sikri C. And Mukherjea, JJ.; and Grover, JJ.; Jaganmohan Reddy, J.; Dissent; Palekar J.; Mathew J.; Beg J.; Dwivedi J.; Chandrachud J. Laws applied,,, “ Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri, eminent jurist and the seven judges who were in the majority. ” — - in April 2013, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the judgement., The Kesavananda Bharati judgement or His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. State of Kerala and Anr. Game inazuma eleven ppsspp.

(: (1973) 4 SCC 225) is a of the that outlined the of the. Asserted through this doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values. The Court partially cemented the prior precedent, which held that constitutional amendments pursuant to Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review, by asserting that only those amendments which tend to affect the 'basic structure of the Constitution' are subject to judicial review. At the same time,the Court also upheld the constitutionality of first provision of Article 31(c), which implied that any constitutional amendment seeking to implement the Directive Principles, which does not affect the 'Basic Structure', shall not be subjected to judicial review. The basic structure doctrine forms the basis of power of the to review, and strike down, enacted by the which conflict with or seek to alter this of the Constitution. The 13-judge of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a sharply divided verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the court held that while the Parliament has 'wide' powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution.

Although the court upheld the basic structure doctrine by only the narrowest of margins, it has since gained widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent cases and judgments. Primary among these was the imposition of the by in, and the subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived to be unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment proved that in fact this apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v.

This Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that Government. Indian origin residing outside India. 5 Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to.

Raj Narain, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the could not be restricted. The case was a culmination of a series of cases relating to limitations to the power to amend the Indian constitution. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • Facts [ ] In February 1970, senior plaintiff and head of 'Edneer Mutt' - a situated in, a village in of, challenged the government's attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.

Although the state invoked its authority under Article 21, a noted Indian jurist,, convinced Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. Even though the hearings consumed five months, the outcome would profoundly affect India's democratic processes. Judgment [ ] The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges.

The bench gave eleven separate judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others., assisted by, presented the case against the government in both cases. Majority judgment [ ] Upholding the validity of clause (4) of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights also. However, the Court affirmed another proposition also asserted in the Golaknath case, by ruling that the expression 'amendment' of this Constitution in article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out the objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles.