Legal Studies Project Work

Class XII

Constitutional
Name of the Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Parties to the Case:

● Petitioner: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati

● Respondent: State of Kerala

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225

Bench: A thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Chief Justice
S.M. Sikri and consisting of Justices A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, K.S.
Hegde, A.N. Grover, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, S.C. Roy, A.N. Mukherjea, and Y.V.
Chandrachud.

Introduction:
His Holiness Shri Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, a revered Indian monk and the head
seer of the 'Edneer Mutt' in Kasaragod district, Kerala, passed away at the age of 80. While his
life was dedicated to spiritual service, his name became synonymous with a landmark
constitutional case that has left an indelible mark on India's legal landscape. The case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, often referred to as the Fundamental Rights case of
1973, remains a pivotal moment in the evolution of constitutional law.

Background and Significance:

Born in 1942, Kesavananda Bharati became known for his spiritual wisdom and devotion. He
served as the petitioner in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, where he
challenged the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as well as subsequent
amendments. Despite his loss in the specific land dispute, the case had far-reaching
implications for constitutional interpretation and the concept of "Basic Structure."
Facts of the Case:
In 1970, His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati moved the Supreme Court to challenge the Kerala
Land Reforms Act, 1963, and its amendments as unconstitutional. The Act empowered the
Kerala government to acquire land owned by religious institutions, including the Mutt he
represented.

During the course of the case, the Kerala Land Reforms Act was further amended in 1971 and
placed in the IXth Schedule by the 29th Constitutional Amendment. This amendment sought to
provide constitutional protection to the Act from judicial scrutiny.

Kesavananda Bharati's challenge was not limited to the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He also
challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. The 24th
Amendment asserted that the Parliament had unlimited power to amend any provision of the
Constitution. The 25th Amendment altered the Fundamental Right to property and introduced
restrictions on challenging laws implementing Directive Principles. The 29th Amendment
included the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and the Kerala Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1971, in the IXth Schedule.

Key Issues:
The case presented several critical issues that reshaped India's constitutional jurisprudence:

1. The scope of Parliament's amending power under Article 368, specifically whether
Fundamental Rights were also amendable.
2. The validity of the 24th Amendment, which declared that the Parliament could amend
any part of the Constitution.
3. The constitutionality of provisions in the 25th Amendment, which altered the right to
property and restricted challenges to laws implementing Directive Principles.
4. The validity of the 29th Amendment, which included certain acts in the IXth Schedule,
granting them immunity from judicial review.

Legal Proceedings and Decision:

A 13-judge bench, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri deliberated over the case for 68 days over six
months. The court's judgment, delivered through 11 separate opinions, formed a complex
majority of 7:6.
Key Holdings and Basic Structure Doctrine:
The majority verdict upheld the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, while introducing
the concept of the "Basic Structure" doctrine. Chief Justice Sikri and others outlined that
Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, but such amendments could not alter
its "basic structure" or foundational principles. While the judgment did not explicitly define the
"basic structure," it highlighted features like the supremacy of the Constitution, a democratic and
republican form of government, secularism, and separation of powers.

Legacy and Impact

The Kesavananda Bharati case marked a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law:

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: The case established the "Basic Structure" doctrine,
empowering courts to review constitutional amendments for their adherence to
fundamental principles.
2. Judicial Review: It reaffirmed the judiciary's role as a check against excessive
legislative power, asserting that even constitutional amendments were subject to
scrutiny.
3. Preservation of Fundamental Rights: The case curtailed the Parliament's power to
amend Fundamental Rights, ensuring their protection from arbitrary changes.
4. Evolution of Jurisprudence: Subsequent cases built upon the Basic Structure
Doctrine, guiding courts in determining the constitutionality of various amendments.

Conclusion:
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, although arising from a specific land dispute,
gave birth to a doctrine that safeguards the essence of the Indian Constitution. His Holiness
Kesavananda Bharati's legacy transcends his spiritual contributions, as his case continues to
shape the legal principles and democratic values of the nation. Through this case, he became
an unwitting champion of the Indian Constitution and its core ideals.

Ratio Decidendi:
1. Limitations on Amendment: A significant ratio in the case was established by a
majority of seven judges, including Chief Justice Sikri, Shelat, Hegde, Grover,
Jaganmohan Reddy, Khanna, and Mukherjea. They held that while Parliament has the
power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power does not extend to
altering the basic structure or framework of the Constitution to the extent that it changes
its fundamental identity. The basic structure is composed of features like the supremacy
 of the Constitution, a democratic and republican form of government, secularism,
separation of powers, and federalism.
2. Inclusion of Fundamental Rights: Another ratio was provided by the majority of
judges, stating that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not encompass amendments to
the Constitution. This means that amendments are not subject to the restrictions of
fundamental rights as ordinary laws are.

Obiter Dicta:
1. Plenary Power to Amend: Justice Palekar, Beg, Dwivedi, and Chandrachud expressed
the view that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is plenary,
encompassing the ability to add, alter, or repeal various articles, including those related
to fundamental rights.
2. Avoidance of Constitutional Void: Justice Ray and Justice Mathew opined that any
amendment must avoid creating a constitutional void and should leave behind a
mechanism for making, interpreting, and implementing laws. Their focus was on
maintaining an "organic instrument" or a functional constitutional framework.
3. Narrow and Broad View of Amendment: Justice Ray believed that the power of
amendment is unlimited, extending to creating an entirely new Constitution, as long as it
results in a functional legal system. On the other hand, Justice Mathew emphasized that
amendments should retain a constitutional structure and avoid creating a void.
4. Total Abrogation: Justice Beg's view allowed for a gradual, step-by-step process of
eroding and replacing the Constitution, which was distinct from a complete abrogation of
the Constitution in one stroke.

Civil

Introduction:
Case Name: Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd.

● Case Citation: Suit Appeal No. 506 of 1975

● Date: Decided on January 3, 1997
● Court: High Court of Delhi
● Presiding Judge: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. LAHOTI
Facts of the Case:
On August 14, 1972, Klaus Mittelbachert found himself on a layover in Delhi while en route to
Frankfurt. During this interval, he checked into the Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental, owned by East
India Hotels Ltd. The hotel boasted a swimming pool complete with a diving board, a feature
that would soon become central to the case. On August 13, 1972, while visiting the swimming
pool, Mittelbachert dove into the water and collided with the bottom of the pool. The impact left
him bleeding from his ear and paralyzed in his arms and legs.

Issues Raised:
Several key issues emerged from the facts of the case:

1. Whether the defendants had control over the premises of the hotel on the day of the
incident.
2. Whether there was any failure on the plaintiff's part to exercise reasonable care for his
safety, and whether he had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
3. The extent to which the disabilities and subsequent death of the plaintiff were directly
linked to the accident.

Legal Principle:
Negligence and Duty of Care

Negligence, as a legal concept, entails the failure to exercise the same degree of care that a
reasonable person would exercise under similar circumstances. It encompasses four essential
elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. Duty of care refers to the obligation
to act reasonably and prudently to prevent harm to others.

Application of Legal Principle:

The case hinged on whether the hotel fulfilled its duty of care towards its guests. The court
scrutinized the degree of care expected from a five-star hotel such as the Oberoi
Intercontinental. The hotel's responsibility towards the safety and well-being of its guests was
augmented by the premium charges it levied for its services. The court found that the hotel's
provision of a swimming pool with a diving board constituted an invitation to guests,
underpinned by the implicit assurance of safety.
Decision of the Case:
The court's analysis culminated in a judgment that underscored the hotel's liability in the
incident. The court ruled that the hotel had failed to provide adequate safety measures in its
swimming pool design, rendering it a hazardous premises. As a result, the plaintiff's injuries and
subsequent disabilities were attributed to the hotel's negligence in maintaining a safe
environment. The court firmly established the hotel's duty of care towards its guests and held it
accountable for any lapses leading to harm.

Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi of the case lies in the court's pronouncement on the degree of care
expected from a prestigious establishment catering to high-paying guests. The court
emphasized that such establishments are under an obligation to ensure the safety and security
of their guests, and their degree of care must align with the premium charges they levy.

Obiter Dicta:
In its obiter dicta, the court stressed the principle of strict liability for hazardous activities,
reiterating the notion that when an activity is inherently dangerous, the entity engaged in that
activity is liable for any resultant harm, regardless of the care exercised.

Conclusion:
"Klaus Mittelbachert vs East India Hotels Ltd." stands as a landmark case that reinforces the
principle of duty of care in hospitality settings and affirms the accountability of establishments,
particularly those of high repute, for the safety of their guests. The case highlights the interplay
between personal safety, negligence, and liability, and its legacy endures as a reminder of the
legal obligations that businesses hold towards their patrons. Through its nuanced deliberations,
the court's decision accentuates the need for vigilance, care, and diligence in maintaining safe
environments, especially within luxury establishments where high expectations and premium
charges intersect.
 **Report on the Case: Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors**

I. Case Details

Name of the Case:Mukesh & Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors

Citation: (2017) 6 SCC 1

Date of Judgment: May 5, 2017

Court:Supreme Court of India

Type of Case:Criminal appellee

Appellant: Mukesh & Anr

Respondent: State For NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan

Referred Section: Section 375 IPC (Rape)

Background
Rape is a grave and widespread crime globally, drawing varying degrees of media attention.
India, aligning with principles of justice and due process, grants the accused an opportunity to
defend themselves, which can lead to delays in justice delivery. The Nirbhaya case (Mukesh &
Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors) is a significant rape case that shook India. The incident took
place on December 16, 2012, and the verdict was delivered on September 15, 2017,
highlighting the concern of delayed justice in rape cases. Despite stringent laws, swift and
severe punishments are essential to deter such crimes. The judgment, though widely approved,
raises questions about the deterrence effect of criminal law and the need for more efficient legal
processes.
Facts
The case involves a horrific gang rape incident in Delhi, where a 23-year-old woman known as
Nirbhaya was brutally assaulted. She went to a movie with her friend and was later persuaded
to enter a vacant bus by the culprits. She was attacked by six men, brutally beaten, raped, and
assaulted with an iron rod. After the assault, she and her friend were thrown out of the moving
bus. Despite their injuries, it took hours for help to arrive. Nirbhaya fought for her life but
eventually succumbed to her injuries. The state prosecuted the six men, and DNA evidence
linked them to the crime. The incident sparked outrage, leading to legal reforms for better
protection and justice for women.

Issues
1. Whether Section 375 of IPC covers the crime of rape entirely?

2. Whether the convicts should receive life imprisonment or the death penalty?

3. Whether the minor convict should be treated as an adult or sent to a juvenile home?

4. Whether the scope of Section 375 should be broadened?

Arguments
Strong prosecution was presented from the subordinate court level. The defendants' appeals
were dismissed at various stages. The defense attempted to raise doubts about the convicts'
presence at the crime scene, but the court rejected these claims based on evidence. The court
considered curative petitions and mercy pleas but upheld the death penalty due to the brutality
of the crime and its impact on society.

Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the four convicts. The court considered the
brutality of the crime, the impact on the victim and society, and the need for deterrence. The
court referred to previous judgments and established that such heinous acts should be treated
as the rarest of rare cases deserving the death penalty. The judgment received widespread
approval for delivering justice to the victim's family and upholding women's rights.
 Conclusion
The Nirbhaya case played a pivotal role in triggering reforms in India's laws concerning crimes
against women. While the judgment brought justice, delayed justice remains an issue. Swift
legal processes are essential to ensure deterrence and uphold justice. Despite legal changes,
India continues to witness rape cases, emphasizing the need for ongoing efforts to promote
gender equality and safety. The case showcased the importance of efficient legal systems that
adapt dynamically to ensure swift and fair justice for all.