The Ksavananda Case(1973)

Resolved QuestionShow me another »

What is kesavananda Bharati case? 1 year ago Report Abuse

omkar.de... Best Answer - Chosen by oters

!i" u have the patien#e read this$

%vent leading to &eshavanada Baharti Case

'n 1()*+ in ,olak ath vs. he State o" /un0ab+ a ben#h o" eleven 0udges !#onstituted "or the rst time$ o" the Supreme Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part o" the 2undamental Rights provisions o" the #onstitution #ould be revoked or limited by amendment o" the #onstitution. his 3uestion had previously been #onsidered in Shankari /rasad v. 4nion o" 'ndia and Sa00an Singh v. State o" Ra0asthan. 'n both #ases+ the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis o" Arti#le 5)6. Chie" 7usti#e Subba Rao writing "or the ma0ority !ve 0udges dissenting$ held that8

9 A law to amend the #onstitution is a law "or the purposes o" Arti#le 15. 9 Arti#le 15 prevents the passing o" laws whi#h :take away or abridge: the 2undamental Rights provisions. 9 Arti#le 5)6 does not #ontain a power to amend the #onstitution but only a pro#edure. 9 he power to amend #omes "rom the normal legislative power o" /arliament. 9 here"ore+ amendments whi#h :take away or abridge: the 2undamental Rights provisions #annot be passed.

The Kesavananda case (1973) Si; years later in 1(*5+ thirteen 0udges o" the Supreme Court+ in#luding then Chie" 7usti#e Sikri+ heard arguments in &esavananda Bharati v. he State o" &erala and thus #onsidered the validity o" the $ 2or the removal o" doubts+ it is hereby de#lared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the #onstituent power o" /arliament to amend by way o" addition+ variation or repeal the provisions o" this Constitution under this arti#le.

 he Court held that sin#e+ as had been previously previously held in the &esavananda &esavananda #ase+ the power o" /arliament to amend the #onstitution was limited+ it #ould not by amending the #onstitution #onvert the power into an unlimited power !as it had purported to do by this amendment$. he #ourt went on to invalidate the amendment o" Arti#le 51-C by the 2orty-se#ond 2orty-se#ond Amendment.  his view o" Arti#le Arti#le 51-C+ but not the basi# stru#ture stru#ture do#trine+ was was 3uestioned but not overruled in San0eev Coke G"g. Co v Bharat Cooking Coal Htd.