The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR SC () 4 SCC , is a case decided by a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme Court of. Kesavananda Bharathi is the case which saved Indian democracy; thanks to Shri Kesavananda Bharati, Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala (). The object of this paper is to consider certain aspects of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1.
|Published (Last):||13 November 2008|
|PDF File Size:||15.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Article deals with claims of scheduled castles and scheduled tribes to services and posts. No state can, therefore, be formed, admitted or set up by law under Article 4 by the Parliament kessvananda has no effective legislative, executive and judicial organs”.
A speech made in the course of the debate on a bill could at best be indicative of the subjective intent of the speaker, but it could not reflect the inarticulate mental process lying behind the majority vote which carried the bill. Rao and v.stae it in its report of July 4, without any change, with v.stats tacit recognition at that stage that the Preamble would be finally based on the Objectives Resolution.
Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala – Law Times Journal
Here also the word “amendment” has a narrow meaning. The court by a majority of 7: While considering this question it would be of relevance to bear in mind that the preamble is not krsavananda the common run such as is to be found in an Act of a legislature.
In the Explanatory statement dated May 22,it was again reiterated as follows: Article 20 protects a person from being convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence or to be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
Article 39which gives particular directions to the State, reads thus:. This Court issued rule nisi on March 25, Having dealt with the question of fundamental rights for minorities, the Minorities Sub-Committee met again on July 21,to consider the political safeguards for minorities and their presentation in the public services.
We need not consider the intermediate drafts, but in the meantime the declaration See Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. We are, however, not concerned with the interpretation of an ordinary statute. Special Sub-Committee minutes June 9, This appears from the following brief survey of the history of the framing of the Preamble extracted from the Framing of India’s Constitution A study by B. Lake 99 C. The members of the panel are paid remuneration Section The proviso throws some light on the problem.
Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala
The vision was put in words in the Preamble and f.state out in part by conferring fundamental rights on the people. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. The principal point, however, is, as stated above, that we look upon this Constituent Assembly as a sovereign body which can decide as it chooses in regard to any matter before it and can give effect to its decisions.
I would require stronger reason than those given in Sankari Prasad’s case to make me accept the view that Fundamental Rights were not really fundamental but were intended to be within the powers of amendment in common with the other parts of the Constitution and without the v.stat of the States. This conclusion is also reinforced by the bhqrati of the Attorney-General and Mr.
The Sub-Committee on Minorities met later the same day. Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 2 the case was rightly decided. This provision was intended to protect legislation dealing with agrarian reforms.
Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April,
But in the one case, this involves an addition to what is expressed: The President or Speaker or other person presiding shall not vote in the first instance but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the event of an equality of votes. Retrieved 12 August Both sides relied on the speeches made in the Constituent Assembly. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Subject to these limitations, Parliament had the right to amend any and every provision of the Constitution.
This page was last edited on 13 Novemberat Retrieved from ” https: But a law although it be with respect to a designated subject matter, cannot be for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth if it be directed to the States to prevent their carrying out their functions as parts of the Commonwealth Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao v.
If that cannot be done, then, as long as the words “Justice, social, economic and political etc.
I may now refer to State of Victoria v. It gives the latest view of that Court on the subject.
The provisions of Sub-clauses cd and e can rightly be said to involve the federal structure and the rights of the States. It is these points that have now to be decided.