50 Interesting Facts in and Around Kesavananda Bharti Case

6/25/2021 50 Interesting Facts In And Around Kesavananda Bharti Case
Advertisement
LOGIN SUBSCRIBE
Contact Us
TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES 

COLUMNS INTERVIEWS FOREIGN/INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT RTI
KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS
LAW SCHOOL CORNER JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAWYERS & LAW FIRMS CARTOONS लाइव लॉ
हिंदी

Home / Columns / 50 Interesting Facts...
COLUMNS
50 Interesting Facts In And Around Kesavananda

Bharti Case
Jeet Bhatt 24 Jun 2021 7:22 PM
SHARE THIS -
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/kesavananda-bharti-case-state-of-kerala-supreme-court-constitutional-amendments-176223?infinitescroll=1 1/32
[1]
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru & Ors Vs. State of Kerala & Ors , is an event in the
history of the Supreme Court which is stranger than fiction. The judgement is known as the
decision that saved India's constitution and prevented India from degenerating into a totalitarian
regime or a one-party Government.
The majority Judgement by 7 judges of the 13 Judge bench overruled the 11 judge bench decision
[2]
in the matter of L C Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab , upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th
Constitutional Amendment, except the last part of Art 31-C which was declared as invalid, but it laid
down the famous Doctrine of Basic Structure by which the Parliaments power to amend any part of
the Constitution was curtailed as it held that the amendment to the Constitution cannot alter the
essential features or the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The Basic Structure doctrine is a
watershed moment in the history of the supreme Court of this country. The battle between the
supremacy of the Parliament as claimed by the Government vis-a-vis the supremacy of the
Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court had reached its ultimate moment and a fine
balance was carved out by the majority in the Kesavananda Bharti Judgment.
Also Read - Parliamentary Speeches And Interpretation Of The Constitution: The Maratha
Reservations Judgment
Advertisement
Advertisement
The brief Background for the Kesavanda Bharti Judgment are the Constitutional Amendments that
were cleared by the Parliament from 1964 to 1972 and certain earlier Judgments of the Supreme
Court because of which the Parliament had brought the Constitutional Amendments. The validity of
the 17th Constitutional Amendment, 1964 was challenged in the matter of Sajjan Singh Vs State of
[3]
Rajasthan , wherein the Majority followed the earlier judgment of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs.
[4]
UOI , which had upheld the validity of the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 by holding that
the Power of the Parliament was not restricted, and it Could amend any part of the Constitution.
However later in 1967 in the Judgment of L C Golaknath Vs State of Punjab, the majority took a
diagonally opposite view and held that the Parliament cannot amend Part III of the Constitution.
Despite of the said Judgment Parliament had cleared various Constitutional Amendments from
1971 to 1972 which in Nani Palkhivalas words Defaced and Defiled the Constitution.
Also Read - Lack Of comfort In Letters Of Comfort
Advertisement
Advertisement
24TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1971:
The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, was passed specifically to overrule Golaknath
Judgment delivered by 11 Judges wherein 6 Judges in their Majority Judgment held that the Word
"Law" under Art 13(2) would include Constitutional Amendment thereby if the Constitutional
Amendment was inconsistent or abridged Fundamental Rights, to that extent the Constitutional
Amendment would be declared to be void. Therefore, the Parliaments Power to amend Part III of
the Constitution was curtailed by the said Judgment which was a big blow to the Government as it
thought that it would come in the way of implementing the Socio-Economic Policies of that time.
Therefore, the Parliament by way of the said Amendment, inserted Art 13(4) and Art 368(3) into the
Constitution to nullify the Golaknath Judgment.
Also Read - A Difficult Road Ahead For Restaurant Chains Under The FSSAI's Labelling Radar
The Statement of Object & Reason of 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971 provided that:
"It is considered necessary to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision
of the Constitution so as to include the provisions of Part III within the scope of the amending
power."
It inserted Article 13(4) which provides:
"(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article
368.".
Also Read - Patriarchy In The Realm Of Cross Cultural Custody And Domestic Violence
Advertisement
It inserted Article 368(2) which provides:
"(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.".
So by these two lines in Art 13 and Art 368, the majority Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered
in the matter of L C Golaknath came to be nullified.
The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 was moved to overrule the ratio of the Bank
[5]
Nationalization Judgment. In the Bank Nationalization case , the Supreme Court had held that the
Constitution guarantees right to compensation, that is, the equivalent in money of the property
compulsorily acquired. It interpreted the Word Compensation in Art 31(2) to mean just and
equivalent compensation and not illusory or arbitrary compensation.
The Statement of Object and Reason of the 25th Constitutional Amendment, 1971 provided:
"The Bill seeks to surmount the difficulties placed in the way of giving effect to the Directive
Principles of State Policy by the aforesaid interpretation. The word "compensation" is sought to be
omitted from article 31(2) and replaced by the word "amount"."
So the Parliament by replacing the word 'Compensation' with the Word 'amount' did away with the
obligation of making just and equitable payment of compensation to the persons whose properties
were to be acquired.
Time Tracking
Software
Best employee time
utilization. View application
usage to manage cost.
ProHance Analytics
Another controversy was with regards to insertion of Article 31C, which provides:
"31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles. -
Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State
towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the
ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article
14, Article 19 or Article 31, [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]:"
According to Nani Palkhivala this clause has features of Totalitarianism. Article 31C purports to
save laws which the State may make towards securing the Directive Principles of State Policy from
being challenged on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away rights conferred under
Article 14, 19 or 31. In effect, Art 31C enables the State to adopt any policy they like and abrogate
Art 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution at will. If the Law contains a declaration that it is for giving
effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy, it cannot be called in question before any court on
the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. It denies any Court power or jurisdiction to go
into this question. The Majority in Kesavanda Bharti declared the bracketed (last part) portion of Art
31C to be invalid.
[6]
The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, was passed to overrule the Privy Purse Judgment ,
wherein the Supreme Court had declared the De-recognition of Rulers by Presidential Orders to be
unconstitutional and beyond the Powers of the President. The Majority had held that Art 291
providing Tax Free Privy Purse to the Princely Rulers was a Solemn Constitutional Guarantee.
The Bill was introduced by Smt Indira Gandhi and the Statement of Objects and Reason of the said
Amendment provided:
"The concept of Rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current
functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have,
therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian
States."
By way of the said Amendment the Provisions regarding Privy Purse I.e. Art 291 and 362 were
Omitted from the Constitution. It further inserted Art 363A which provides that the Recognition
granted to Rulers of Indian States ceases and Privy Purse is abolished.
It is because of the 29th Constitutional Amendment, 1972 that His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti
had to file a Petition under Art 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said
Amendment as the property of his Muth were to be acquired under the Amended Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963 .
The 29th Constitutional Amendment inserted Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and
(Amendment) Act 1971 into the 9th Schedule despite Supreme Court upholding the High Court
Judgment invalidating certain crucial provisions. So Provisions of the Act which were ultra-vires the
Constitution came to be saved by inserting the said Act under the 9th Schedule as it got the
protection of Art 31B. This Act of the Parliament was challenged by His Holiness Kesavanada
Bharti in his petition.
The core question apart from the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Constitutional
Amendments in said case was:
Did the Parliament have unlimited power to amend the constitution or are there any implied
Limitations on such amending power?
Apart from the core question with regards to the nature, extent and scope of the amending power
and other legal aspects, there were also involved Political Motives and subtle attempts at
interference with Judicial Independence. As one of the Judge who decided that case puts it, "this
[7]
case was full of excitement and unusual happenings."
There are several interesting facts and unusual happenings in and around the said case which are
compiled from various sources and are as follows:
1 The Judgment was delivered on 24th April, 1973 on the day Chief Justice S. M. Sikri Retired.
2 One and only case to be decided by 13 Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3 Largest Bench hearing the Lengthiest arguments which lasted for 68 days spanning over 5
months, covering the widest areas of law and legal literature resulting into 703 page judgment
with 11 scholarly opinions.
4 [8]
Arguments began on 31st October, 1972 and ended on 22nd March, 1973 .
5 Right at the start it was made clear that the 13 Judges were convinced to overrule the L C
[9]
Golaknath judgment .
6 The Supreme Court by razor thin majority of 7:6 for the first time in any Constitutional
Adjudication in the world propounded the doctrine of Basic Structure- the power of the
Parliament to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that the Parliament cannot amend
the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Later on Malaysian Courts and recently the Kenya High
Court adopted the said doctrine.
7 Two Retired Supreme Court Judges, Justice I. D. Dua and Justice C. A. Vaidialingam were
appointed as Ad Hoc Judges to handle the Court Business during that time when remaining 13
[10]
Judges were hearing the Kesavanada Case .
8 The Constitutional Amendment can be struck down on the ground of violation of Basic
Structure was unknown to Comparative Constitutional Law.
9 The Majority Judgment was delivered by Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, Justice J. M Shelat, Justice
Grover, Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice Mukherjee, Justice P Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice H R
Khanna. The Minority opinion was delivered by Justice A N Ray, Justice Mathews, Justice Beg,
Justice Dwivedi, Justice Palekar and Justice Y V Chandrachud.
10 There was no Unanimity on what constituted the Basic Structure of the Constitution despite 11
opinions.
11 The Judgment was heavily criticized by the Government as being ambiguous and incoherent
and an attack on the Supremacy of the Parliament.
12 The Judgment is considered most remarkable in the Development of the Constitutional law as
it saved Democracy and prevented India from degenerating into a totalitarian regime or a one
party Government.
13 Nani Palkhivala was the lead counsel for the petitioners who along with counsels for the
petitioners argued for 31 days. H M Seervai who appeared for the State of Kerala, argued for 21
[11]
days followed by Niren De .
14 Though Niren De was the Attorney General of India and H M Seervai the Advocate General for
the State of Maharashtra, Seervai appeared and argued for the State of Kerala and opened the
arguments for the Respondents which was unprecedented as the Attorney General had the
First Rights of Audience. Attorney General Niren De was not happy and had complained to the
[12]
Prime Minister .
15 This case showcases the Breathtaking scholarship of the 13 Judges as well as the lawyers
who represented both the sides. Analysis of the Provisions of more than 71 Constitutions of
Different Countries were submitted by the Counsels.
16 Counsels referred to decisions of various Jurisdictions like USA, England, Canada, Australia,
Ireland, Ceylon. References were made to various Text Books on Constitutional law, other Legal
Subjects and also on Political Science, Economics and History.
17 The case was almost to be reheard as In Feb and March, 1973 Justice Beg was hospitalized
due to illness and if J Beg did not recover Chief Justice Sikri would retire on 24th April, 1973.
Suggestions were made to hear in the absence of J Beg which was objected by the Attorney
[13]
General Niren De and H M Seervai .
18 Justice Beg did recover however the arguments were cut short and written arguments were to
be submitted by the Counsels.
19 Though Nani Palkhivala appeared for His Holiness Kesavanda Bharti who was the head of a
Math in Kerala, he never met or even spoke with Nani Palkhivala. Kesavanda Bharti was quite
surprised why his name was appearing in the papers everyday and why the case was taking so
[14]
much time .
20 Entire litigation was funded by Coal, Mining and Sugar Companies who were also petitioners
[15]
along with Kesavananda Bharti .
21 The Theory of Basic Structure was not supported by any precedent or judgment of any Court.
The said theory was the Brainchild of a German Scholar Prof. Deitrich Conrad who had
propounded the theory of Implied Limitation based on the experience of Germany and the
misuse of the Weimar Constitution by Adolf Hitler.
22 Adolf Hitler was appointed as the Chancellor of Germany and he undermined the Republic and
the Weimar Constitution and seized absolute dictatorial powers through the amendment
process of the German Constitution.
23 Before this Judgment, the Basic Feature theory was first introduced by Justice Mudholkar in
[16]
his Minority Opinion in the Judgment of Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan . He referred to
the Doctrine of Essential Features of the Constitution derived from the Pakistan Supreme Court
[17]
judgment in the matter of Fazlul Quader Chowdhary Vs Mohd Abdul Haque .
24 Unusual Happenings:
25 Mr. Niren De the Attorney General threatened that the Courts future would be at stake and the
[18]
consequences have to be borne in mind if the decision went against the Government .
26 Justice Jaganmohan Reddy remarked in his Autobiography- The Judiciary I Served, that "the
Attacks on the Court were often vicious and showed the venom and pique which these persons
[19]
had against the Judges" .
27 Justice Jaganmohan Reddy states that "It was generally assumed and alleged that the
manipulation by the Government in the appointment of judges was to obtain persons whose
philosophy was intended to accord with the Governments philosophy or its commitment". He
further observes "that the attempt to pack the court with the judges whose views are in accord
with the view of those who appoint them are not always successful which was proved in this
[20]
Case. "
28 Justice Jaganmohan Reddy observes that "What was put to test in the case was the role and
the attitude of the judiciary and the judicial process in achieving social justice under the
Constitution."
29 Justice Reddy observed in his autobiography that "I got the impression throughout that minds
[21]
were closed and views were predetermined" .
30 Justice Reddy in his Judgment has mentioned "we should free ourselves of any considerations
which tend to create pressure on the mind. In our view it is not the gloom that should influence
us, as Milton said, we cannot leave the real world for a utopia but instead ordain wisely and if I
may add, according to the well accepted rules of construction and on a true interpretation of
[22]
the constitutional provisions ."
31 In the said case the Bench worked under continuous and sometimes intense pressure as
pointed out by Granville Austin in his Book Working a Democratic Constitution. He observes
that Intense pressure came directly from the Government to assure a favourable Ruling from
[23]
the Court .
32 Another Unique feature of the Judgment is that on 24th April, 1973 when the Judgment was
delivered the majority also delivered the Summary/Statement of what was held by the Majority.
It was a Controversial Summary as 4 judges refused to sign the summary. Justice A N Ray,
Justice Mathew, Justice Beg And Justice Dwivedi refused to sign the summary.
33 Later Justice Chandrachud in Minerva Mills Case held that "Whether the Summary is a
legitimate part of the judgment or not……it is undeniable that it correctly reflects the majority
[24]
view."
34 Justice Reddy and Granville Austin Mentions that the drafts of the judgment before it were
delivered had reached the Government. The Government was aware that the 3 most Senior
Judges were against the Government and therefore on 25th April, 1973 the Government
[25]
announced that J A. N. Ray had been appointed as the Chief Justice of India .
35 3 Senior most judges, Justice Shelat, Justice Hegde and Justice Grover had been bypassed for
the first time and Justice A. N. Ray came to be appointed as the Chief Justice of India. Justice
Khanna states that this was a Grievous blow to the independence of the Judiciary. In his view
the "Supersession was a punishment or show of governments displeasure at the judges not
[26]
having towed the Government's line in the Kesasvananda Decision."
36 Earlier there was an attempt to supersede Justice J. C. Shah who had given the majority
judgment in R. C. Cooper and Privy Purse case, at that time all remaining Judges threatened to
[27]
resign in the event of Supersession except one who was Justice A. N. Ray .
37 Granville Austin mentions that the Supreme Court had risen to the occasion but what a bizzare
fashion to save the Constitution.
38 Smt. Indira Gandhi in her speech in the Parliament had said "We do not accept the dogma of
[28]
Basic Structure" .
• Attempt to Review the Kesavanda Bharti Judgment during the peak of Emergency:
1 [29]
Getting Kesavanda Judgment reversed seemed to be the priority for Chief Justice Ray .
2 During Emergency on 20-10-1975 Chief Justice Ray issued a written order "that the Court
would hear arguments on 10-11-1975 on two matters:
i Whether or not the basic structure doctrine restricted Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution.
[30]
ii Whether or not Bank Nationalisation case had been correctly decided."
1 There was no written application or a Review Petition filed before the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court does not hear Review Petitions in Open Court.
2 Following the order of the Chief Justice on 10-11-1975 a Bench of 13 Judges commenced
hearing of the review of Kesavananda Bharati case.
3 On 12-11-1975 the Bench assembled to a packed Court for resumption of the arguments.
Hardly had the 13 Judges taken their seats when to the surprise of all the Chief Justice stated
"This Bench is dissolved".
4 T R Andhyarujina who had assisted H M Seervai in the said case observes in his Article that
"From all accounts it does appear that the Chief Justice felt uncomfortable at the doubts
expressed by some of his colleagues and the manner in which he had ordered the review. But
however wrongly the review was ordered it was even more wrong to dissolve a Bench without
[31]
any reason in the manner the Chief Justice did. "
5 During the hearing at one point, somebody asked who constituted this bench? Chief Justice
Ray looked at Palkhivala and said, "you did." Palkhivala responded with an emphatic "no, stating
why would he challenge a decision in his favour". Justice Ray then stated that the State of
Tamil Nadu had asked for a review, to which the Advocate General of the State responded "that
the state stands by the judgment". Similar was the response from the Advocate General of the
[32]
State of Gujarat Mr J M Thakore .
6 Nani Palkhivala during his arguments remarked that "if I say anything about the recent
Amendments in Public, I shall probably be arrested. In fact, the only place where there is any
freedom of Speech in this country is the few hundred square feet of various courtrooms".
[33]
Justice Krishna Iyer replied: "You should thank the Court for this."
7 On the third day of the hearing, Chief Justice Ray came to the Court room and simply
announced 'Bench Dissolved' and walked out.
8 Post his resignation, Justice H.R. Khanna (a member of the Bench in Kesavananda Review)
praised Nani's advocacy in Kesavananda Review case and remarked 'It was not Nani who
spoke. 'It was divinity speaking through him'.
9 J Khanna and other Judges were of the view that the heights of eloquence and advocacy
reached on these two days were really 'unparalleled and that palkhivalas feat would perhaps
never be equalled in the Supreme Court.'
10 Later Even H M Seervai admitted that Basic Structure theory preserved Indian Democracy.
11 After Kesavanada Bharti Judgment, the Supreme Court has till date declared 6 Constitutional
Amendments to be invalid on the ground of being violative of the Basic Structure of the
Constitution:
12 [34]
Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain , struck down Art 329-A(4) which came to be inserted by the 39th
Constitutional Amendment, 1975, on the ground that it violated Free and Fair Elections, which
is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
13 [35]
Minerva Mills Vs. UOI , struck down Art 368(4) & (5) which were inserted by the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment, 1976, on the ground that it took away the powers of Judicial
Review which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
14 [36]
P. Sambamurthy Vs. State of A.P , struck down Art 371-D(5) which was inserted by the 32nd
Constitutional Amendment, 1973, on the ground that it took away the powers of Judicial
Review which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
15 [37]
Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachilhu , struck down Para 7 of the 10th Schedule which was inserted
by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment, 1985, on the ground that it took away the powers of
Judicial Review as well as on the ground that the Procedure under the proviso to Art 368 was
not followed.
16 [38]
L Chandra Kumar Vs. UOI , struck down Art 323-A Clause (2)(d) and Art 323-B Clause (3)(d),
which were inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, on the ground that it took
away the powers of Judicial Review which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
17 [39]
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. UOI , struck down Art 124 (as
amended), Art 124-A to C, Art 127, 128, 217, 222, 224, 224-A and 231, which were inserted by
the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014, on the ground that violated the Independence of
Judiciary, which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
• Important Lessons from this Judgment:
1) Majority Governments cannot be completely trusted and it is important to have a formidable
opposition.
2) Powerful Central Government can become a tyrant if there are no institutions of checks and
balances.
3) Courageous Judges must sacrifice but they win the hearts of millions of people are remembered
for their bold decisions.
4) Hard work and Industry of a Lawyer along with great judges have saved the Democracy in India.
5) Supreme Court has proved to be the greatest upholder of the Constitutional values and the
liberties of the Citizens.
6) Indians must thank Kesavanda Bharti, the 7 Judges forming the majority and Nani Palkhivala, as
because of their efforts India is today worlds largest Democracy.
Views are personal
The Author is an Advocate at the Gujarat High Court.
[1]
(1973) 4 SCC 225
[2]
AIR 1967 SC 1643
[3]
AIR 1965 SC 845
[4]
AIR 1951 SC 458
[5]
1970, 3 S.C.R. 530
[6]
AIR 1971 SC 530
[7]
Jutice Y V Chandrachud, The Basics of Indian Constitution: Its Search for Social Justice and the
Role of Judges, Publications Division, GOI, New Delhi, 1989, P. 17.
[8]
Justice P Jaganmohan Reddy, The Judiciary I Served, Orient BlachSwan Pvt Ltd, 1999, p. 225.
[9]
Soli J Sorabjee & Arvind P Datar, Nani Palkhivala The Courtroom Genius, Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, P. 114.
[10]
Granville Austin, Woring a Democratic Constitution, Oxford India Paperbacks, P 260
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Ibid
[16]
AIR 1965 SC 845
[17]
1963 PLD 486 (SC)
[18]
P 230
[19]
Ibid.
[20]
P 235
[21]
P 227
[22]
(1973) 4 SCC 225 at P. 613,
[23]
Granville Austin, Woring a Democratic Constitution, Oxford India Paperbacks, P 270
[24]
(1980) 3 SCC 625
[25]
[26]
J H R Khanna, Judiciary in India, P 22.
[27]
Abhinav Chandrchud, Supreme Whispers, Penguin Random House India, P 10,
[28]
Indira Gandhi: Selected Speeches and Writings, Vol 3 Pg 288.
[29]
Abhinav Chandrchud, Supreme Whispers, Penguin Random House India, P 17,
[30]
[31]
The Untold Story of How Kesavananda Bharati and the Basic Structure Doctrine Survived an
Attempt to Reverse them by the Supreme Court by T R Andhyarujina, (2009) 9 SCC J-33.
[32]
[33]
Ibid. P. 150.
[34]
1975 Supp SCC 1
[35]
(1980) 3 SCC 625
[36]
(1987) 1 SCC 362
[37]
1992 (Supp) 2 SCC 651
[38]
(1997) 3 SCC 261
[39]
(2016) 5 SCC 1
TAGS KESAVANANDA BHARTI CASE STATE OF KERALA SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here
to Subscribe. All payment options available.
loading....
+ VIEW MORE
SIMILAR POSTS
Lack Of comfort In Letters Of A Difficult Road Ahead For

Parliamentary Speeches And
Comfort Restaurant Chains Under The
Interpretation Of The Constitution:
FSSAI's Labelling Radar
The Maratha Reservations
Judgment
24 Jun 2021 10:55 AM 23 Jun 2021 4:48 PM 23 Jun 2021 11:41 AM
Patriarchy In The Realm Of Mandatory Display Of Food Right To Be Forgotten And

Cross Cultural Custody And License/Registration Number On Digital Privacy
Domestic Violence Invoice

21 Jun 2021 6:47 PM 21 Jun 2021 11:25 AM 21 Jun 2021 9:07 AM
India And The Hague Evidence Can't A Single Bench Of High Satish Chandra Banerji: A
Convention Court Issue Directions To Sesquicentennial Tribute
Registry To Circulate A
Judgment?
20 Jun 2021 7:45 PM 20 Jun 2021 1:08 PM 20 Jun 2021 10:28 AM
Scope of Section 11 (6) of the National Awards: Legally And Copyright Law &Museum
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Historically Speaking Industry
1996
19 Jun 2021 5:13 PM 18 Jun 2021 10:06 AM 17 Jun 2021 9:15 PM
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
+ MORE
WEBINARS
[LIVE NOW] LiveLaw Practitioners Series: "How To Contradict A Witness?" - By Justice Abraham Mathew
+ MORE
LAW FIRMS
Model Tenancy Act, 2021 – A New "Lease" Of Life For Landlords And Tenants
+ MORE
LATEST NEWS
1 Covid- Third Wave- Minimize Over Crowding, Restrict Traditional Ways Of Campaigning In
Local Body Polls And More: Petitioner Submits Suggestions In Bombay HC
2 "Attempt To Prevent Investigation": ED Moves High Court Challenging Judicial Inquiry

Ordered By Kerala Govt In Gold Smuggling Case
3 Find Out the Effects of Immunisation on the 2053 Vaccine Scam Victims: Bombay High
Court To Govt, BMC
4 Service Benefits- Female Partner In A Live-In Relationship Cannot Have A Better Claim Than
A Legally Married Wife: Kerala High Court
5 Plea Seeking Financial Assistance To Lawyers Infected By Or Who Died Due To COVID:
Chhatisgarh HC Seeks State Bar Council's Response
"Clear Co-relation Between Holding Of Kumbh Mela And Consequent Deaths, COVID
Shouldn't Be Re-Invited By Permitting Large Gathering At Shrines: Uttarakhand HC
7 Regular Testing, Vaccination Of Shopkeepers Including Vegetable Vendors Should Be Taken

Up On Priority Basis: Gauhati HC To State Govt
8 Decide On Providing Video Conferencing Facilities To Quasi-Judicial Authorities : Karnataka

High Court To State
लाइव लॉ हिंदी + MORE
'सीबीएसई, आईसीएसई के छात्रों को सीटें मिलेंगी और आपके छात्रों को नुकसान होगा': सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कक्षा 12वीं की परीक्षा मामले
में आंध्र प्रदेश सरकार से कहा
"हमारा ध्यान 12 वीं कक्षा की ओर है" : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने के रल में 11 वीं कक्षा की परीक्षा रद्द करने की मांग को लेकर छात्रों को
हाईकोर्ट जाने को कहा
"अगर अब मैं सुनवाई से अलग होता हूं, तो क्या मैं इसे मीडिया ट्रायल के कारण छोड़ूंगा ?": कलकत्ता हाईकोर्ट के जस्टिस कौशिक
चंदा ने ममता बनर्जी की सुनवाई से खुद को अलग करने की अर्जी पर फै सला सुरक्षित रखा
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बोर्डों को 10 दिनों के भीतर 12 वीं कक्षा के लिए मूल्यांकन योजना अधिसूचित करने का निर्देश दिया, परिणाम
के लिए 31 जुलाई डेडलाइन
"क्या आप छात्रों जीवन को खतरे में डालना चाहते हैं ? " : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने COVID के बीच 12 वीं की परीक्षा कराने पर आंध्र सरकार
को चेताया
+ MORE
INTERNATIONAL
1 Right To Life Is The Mother Of All Rights: Malawi Supreme Court Holds Death Penalty
Unconstitutional
2 Google v. Oracle : Perspectives on Copyright, Fair Use and Industry Implications
3 Google's Copying Of Oracle's Java SE API Was 'Fair Use', Holds US Supreme Court
4 Recording Sexual History Of Rape Victim By Carrying Out "Two-finger Test" Or "Virginity Test"
Unconstitutional: Pakistan Supreme Court
+ MORE
ENVIRONMENT
1 [Pollution Of Ganga Tributaries In Varanasi] NGT Constitutes Independent Monitoring

Committee For Restoration And Rejuvenation Of Rivers Varuna And Assi
2 Industrial Units Cannot Operate Without Prior Environment Clearance, State Has No Power
To Exempt Requirement Of Prior EC: NGT
3 Juhi Chawla Moves Delhi High Court Against Roll-Out Of 5G Telecom Services
4 "Quality Of Flowing Water Can't Be Compromised", Madras HC Directs State To Form Expert
Body To Keep Rivers Free From Effluents
JOB UPDATES
1. Legal Assistant Vacancy At Postgraduate Institute Of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh
2. Consultant Vacancy At United Nations Development Programme
3. Advocate Vacancy At BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited
4. Deputy Manager (Legal) Vacancy At MECON Limited
5. Manager (Legal) Vacancy At REPCO Bank
+ VIEW MORE
JUST ENTER YOUR EMAIL FOR THE

LIVELAW DAILY NEWS BRIEFING BY
EMAIL ALL THE DAY'S HEADLINES AND
HIGHLIGHTS FROM LIVELAW, DIRECT
TO YOU EVERY MORNING
NEWSLETTERS
DIRECTLY IN YOUR MAILBOX
Enter Your Email
Submit
TOP STORIES KNOW THE LAW
NEWS UPDATE LAW FIRMS
COLUMNS JOB UPDATES
INTERVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS
INTERNATIONAL EVENTS CORNER
RTI UPDATES COVER STORY
EDITOR'S PICK PLACEMENTS
LAW SCHOOL CORNER SCHOLARSHIPS
ARTICLES SEMINARS
CALL FOR PAPERS ENVIRONMENT
COMPETITIONS BOOK REVIEWS
INTERNSHIPS
© All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw
Powered By Hocalwire
Who We Are Careers Advertise With Us Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms And Conditions

X
Live Law subscriptions starting ₹ 599 +GST
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
SUBSCRIBE NOW
Already have an account? Sign In

50 Interesting Facts in and Around Kesavananda Bharti Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Interesting Facts in and Around Kesavananda Bharti Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/25/2021 50 Interesting Facts In And Around Kesavananda Bharti Case

TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES 

KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS

50 Interesting Facts In And Around Kesavananda

regime or a one-party Government.

Also Read - Lack Of comfort In Letters Of Comfort

24TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1971:

Constitution to nullify the Golaknath Judgment.

It inserted Article 13(4) which provides:

It inserted Article 368(2) which provides:

in the matter of L C Golaknath came to be nullified.

25TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1971:

equivalent compensation and not illusory or arbitrary compensation.

utilization. View application

usage to manage cost.

"31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles. -

26TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1971:

granted to Rulers of Indian States ceases and Privy Purse is abolished.

29TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1971:

Reforms Act, 1963 .

Bharti in his petition.

Amendments in said case was:

compiled from various sources and are as follows:

with 11 scholarly opinions.

Court adopted the said doctrine.

Structure was unknown to Comparative Constitutional Law.

Grover, Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice Mukherjee, Justice P Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice H R

Justice Dwivedi, Justice Palekar and Justice Y V Chandrachud.

and an attack on the Supremacy of the Parliament.

Different Countries were submitted by the Counsels.

Subjects and also on Political Science, Economics and History.

be submitted by the Counsels.

misuse of the Weimar Constitution by Adolf Hitler.

process of the German Constitution.

fashion to save the Constitution.

would hear arguments on 10-11-1975 on two matters:

Supreme Court does not hear Review Petitions in Open Court.

hearing of the review of Kesavananda Bharati case.

"This Bench is dissolved".

announced 'Bench Dissolved' and walked out.

spoke. 'It was divinity speaking through him'.

never be equalled in the Supreme Court.'

is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.

Review which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.

Review which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.

Judiciary, which is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.

• Important Lessons from this Judgment:

1) Majority Governments cannot be completely trusted and it is important to have a formidable

for their bold decisions.

liberties of the Citizens.

because of their efforts India is today worlds largest Democracy.

Views are personal

The Author is an Advocate at the Gujarat High Court.

Role of Judges, Publications Division, GOI, New Delhi, 1989, P. 17.

Lack Of comfort In Letters Of A Difficult Road Ahead For

Patriarchy In The Realm Of Mandatory Display Of Food Right To Be Forgotten And

Domestic Violence Invoice

2 "Attempt To Prevent Investigation": ED Moves High Court Challenging Judicial Inquiry

7 Regular Testing, Vaccination Of Shopkeepers Including Vegetable Vendors Should Be Taken

8 Decide On Providing Video Conferencing Facilities To Quasi-Judicial Authorities : Karnataka

लाइव लॉ हिंदी + MORE

2 Google v. Oracle : Perspectives on Copyright, Fair Use and Industry Implications

1 [Pollution Of Ganga Tributaries In Varanasi] NGT Constitutes Independent Monitoring