Judicial review is a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Judicial Review plays an important role in Indian Judiciary.
The constitution of India is considered to be the ‘General Will’ of the people of India. It is a document of immense importance.
It is not only is the basic law of the land but the living organic by which the other laws are to be created as per the requirement of the nation.
The life of a nation is dynamic, living, and organic its political, social and economic conditions are always subject to change.
Therefore, a constitution drafted in one era and in a particular circumstance may be found to be inadequate in another era in a different context.
It becomes necessary therefore to have machinery or some process by which the constitution may be adopted from time to time as per the contemporary needs of the nation. Such changes may be brought by different ways including formal method of amendment contained in Article 368 of the constitution. Article 368 of the constitution does not prescribe any express limitation upon the parliament’s amending power.
Judicial review is a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Judicial Review plays an important role in Indian Judiciary.
The constitution of India is considered to be the ‘General Will’ of the people of India. It is a document of immense importance.
It is not only is the basic law of the land but the living organic by which the other laws are to be created as per the requirement of the nation.
The life of a nation is dynamic, living, and organic its political, social and economic conditions are always subject to change.
Therefore, a constitution drafted in one era and in a particular circumstance may be found to be inadequate in another era in a different context.
It becomes necessary therefore to have machinery or some process by which the constitution may be adopted from time to time as per the contemporary needs of the nation. Such changes may be brought by different ways including formal method of amendment contained in Article 368 of the constitution. Article 368 of the constitution does not prescribe any express limitation upon the parliament’s amending power.
The slides relate to Part - III of the Indian Constitution i.e. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. It elaborates on the concept and meaning of State under the constitution. Useful for Law students and Professionals.
The citizens of India are guaranteed certain basic fundamental rights by the state, which cannot be taken away from them except in cases of procedure established by law.
Such a guarantee is instrumental in reducing the arbitrariness of government legislation.
In the absence of fundamental rights, the citizens may not be entitled to any basic human rights.
Thus to prevent this, the constitution-makers incorporated Part III of the Indian Constitution enumerating a list of rights that is to assured by the state.
The slides relate to Part - III of the Indian Constitution i.e. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. It elaborates on the violation of fundamental rights under the constitution. Useful for Law students and Professionals.
Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
which provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion.The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court
The slides relate to Part - III of the Indian Constitution i.e. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. It elaborates on the concept and meaning of State under the constitution. Useful for Law students and Professionals.
The citizens of India are guaranteed certain basic fundamental rights by the state, which cannot be taken away from them except in cases of procedure established by law.
Such a guarantee is instrumental in reducing the arbitrariness of government legislation.
In the absence of fundamental rights, the citizens may not be entitled to any basic human rights.
Thus to prevent this, the constitution-makers incorporated Part III of the Indian Constitution enumerating a list of rights that is to assured by the state.
The slides relate to Part - III of the Indian Constitution i.e. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. It elaborates on the violation of fundamental rights under the constitution. Useful for Law students and Professionals.
Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935,
which provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion.The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court
The dispute over the Constitution's "fundamental structure," which had been dormant in the archives of India's constitutional history for the last decade of the twentieth century, has resurfaced in the public sphere.
Case Analysis on Kehwananda Bharti V/S State of Kerala and ANR, On 24th April...ijtsrd
Exactly forty years ago, on April 24, 1973, Chief Justice Sikri and 12 Judges of the Supreme Court assembled to deliver the most important judgement in its history. The case of Kesaavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23,1973. The hard work and scholarship that had gone into the preparation of this case was breathtaking. Literally hundreds of cases had been citied and the then Attorney-General had made a comparative chart analysing the provisions of the Constitutions of 71 different countries. The 703-page judgement revealed a sharply divided court and, by a wafer-thin majority of 7:6, it was held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not let or amend "the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution." This was the inherent and implied limitation on the amending power of Parliament This basic structure doctrine, as future events showed, saved Indian democracy and Kesavananda Bharti will always occupy a hollowed place in our constitutional history. The Kesavananda Bharti case was the culmination of a serious conflict between the judiciary and the government, then headed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In 1967, the Supreme court took an extreme view, in the Golak Nath case, that Parliament could not amend or alter any fundamental right. Two years later, Indira Gandhi nationalized 14 major banks and the paltry compensation was made payable in bonds that matured after 10 years. This was struck down by the Supreme Court, although it upheld the right of Parliament to nationalize banks and the other industries. A year later, in 1970, Mrs. Gandhi abolished the Privy Purses. This was a constitutional betrayal of the solem assurance given by sardar Patel to all the erstwhile rules. This was also struck down by the late Madhavrao Scindia , who later joined the congress party. The Kesavanada case had its roots in Gokalnath vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court in 11-member bench, ruled that Parliament could not curtail any fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution were unrestricted and unlimited. Two years after Golaknath, Indira nationalized a big portion of the banking and unlimited. Two years after Golaknath, Indira nationalized a big portion of the banking system but he compensation to exiting shareholders was paltry, in fact, almost extortionate. Akanksha Choukse"Case Analysis on Kehwananda Bharti V/S State of Kerala and ANR, On 24th April, 1973" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-2 | Issue-5 , August 2018, URL: http://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd17118.pdf http://www.ijtsrd.com/management/law-and-management/17118/case-analysis-on-kehwananda-bharti-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-24th-april-1973/akanksha-choukse
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
1. DIGVIJAY GANPATI
B.A. LL.B. (1st Semester)
School of Legal Studies, CMR University
AIR 1973 SC 1461
KESAVANANDA BHARTI
Vs
STATE OF KERALA
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 1
2. Introduction
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (case
citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225)Judgement is a landmark decision of the Supreme
Court of India.
This Judgement outlined the Basic Structure Doctrine of the
Constitution.
The Supreme Court constituted its largest ever bench of 13 judges to
decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to
amend the Constitution or not, in regards of any provision of the
constitution by virtue of Article 368.
The bench gave separate judgements, which agreed on some points and
differed on others.
Paved the way for struggle between Parliament and Judiciary.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 2
3. History of amending power of parliament
Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India (AIR 1951 SC
458)
Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC
845)
I.C. Golaknath Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC
1643)
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 3
4. Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India
Passed in Year 1951
The Validity of 1st amendment was challenged.
Supreme Court Says Ordinary Law and Amendment are different.
Article 13
Article 368
Means parliament can take away fundamental rights by
constitutional amendments and that will not be void under article 13.
There is conflict between these two
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 4
5. Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan
17th Amendment was challenged.
Held that amendment is valid.
Parliament can amend anything in the constitution
according to procedure laid down in Art.368.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 5
6. I.C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab
1st Amendment and 17th amendment was challenged.
Supreme Court Ruled That Parliament Can not Curtail any
of the fundamental rights in the constitution because
they are sacrosanct in nature.
Supreme Court said that constitutional amendment is also
a Law under article 13.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 6
7. AMENDMENTS
Many amendment brought about by parliament to override the
controversial judgements standing in the way of parliament and to
uphold their power to amend.
24th amendment
25th amendment
29th amendment
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 7
8. 24th Amendment
Passed in the year 1971
Objective- to remove hindrance and difficulties created by the
decision of S.C in the year 1967 in Golaknath Case.
The government of India can amend any part of Constitution Of India
including the Fundamental Rights.
President obligation to give assent to bill amending the constitution.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 8
9. 25th Amendment
Passed in the year 1972.
Art 31 Clause 2 amended.
The government of India can acquire property of any citizen of India
and price of property is fixed by government.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 9
10. 29th Amendment
29th Amendment passed in the year 1972.
Kerala Govt. faced practical difficulties and to overcome them amended
Kerala land Reform Act, 1963 through:-
(A)Kerala land Reform (Amendment) Act, 1969, and
(B)Kerala land Reform (Amendment) Act, 1971
29th Amendment - include these amendment acts in 9th schedule to the
constitution.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 10
11. Article: 31 B and Ninth Schedule
Ninth schedule and Article 31 B complement each other.
Art 31 B came into effect by way of 1st amendment act, 1951.
Art 31 B talks about protection given to all acts and regulations
mentioned in 9th schedule nor any of the provision thereof shall be
declared void, or ever have to become void on grounds that such act
and regulation takes away or violate the F.R.
All acts in 9th schedule are provided immunity from judicial review,
overriding judgements, decree and order to the contrary, if any.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 11
12. KESAVANANDA BHARTI Vs STATE OF KERALA
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, senior plaintiff and head of "Edneer
Mutt" - a Hindu Mutt situated in Edneer, a village in Kasaragod district
of Kerala
Kerala government's attempts, under two state land reform acts, to
impose restrictions on the management of religious property.
A noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, convinced Swami into
filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to manage
religiously owned property without government interference.
According to Article-25 and Article-26 – It empowers Indian Citizen
or a Trust to manage religious property.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 12
13. ISSUES
Whether any limitation or restriction could be placed on
the amending power of parliament ?
Validity of 24th 25th and 29th amendment of C.O.I ?
Whether law word includes amendment ?
What exactly is basic structure doctrine ?
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 13
14. Judgement
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
And considered the validity of the 24th, 25th,and 29th amendments.
The case was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges.
Judgement is in the ratio of 7:6
After 68 days hearing on 24th april 1973 supreme courts come to a Verdict
which is :-
(a) Parliament Could amend any part of the constitution, but
(b) Basic structure can’t be altered.
Held that though parliament had wide powers to amend, such powers
were curtailed by maintaining the basic spirit of constitution.
Judicial Review also part of basic structure.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 14
15. What is Basic Structure Doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the
Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or
destroyed through amendments by the parliament.
The majority had differing opinions on what the "basic structure" of the
Constitution comprised –
According to Chief Justice Sarv Mittra Sikri –
The supremacy of the constitution.
A republican and democratic form of government.
The secular character of the Constitution.
The federal character of the Constitution.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 15
16. According to Justices Shelat and Grover –
The mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of
State Policy.
Maintenance of the unity and integrity of India.
The sovereignty of the country.
According to Justices Hegde and Mukherjea –
The sovereignty of India.
The democratic character of the polity.
The unity of the country.
Essential features of individual freedoms.
The mandate to build a welfare state.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 16
17. 42nd Amendment
Passed in year 1976
Almost all parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble and amending
clause, were changed by the 42nd Amendment.
The Parliament was given unrestrained power to amend any parts of the
Constitution,without judicial review.
This essentially invalidated the Supreme Court's ruling in Kesavananda Bharati
v. State of Kerala in 1973.
The amendment to article 368, prevented any constitutional amendment
from being "called in question in any Court on any ground".
It also declared that there would be no limitation whatever on the
constituent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 17
18. Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs Union Of India
AIR 1980 SC 1789
The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional. Chief Justice
Y.V. Chandrachud explained in his opinion that since, as had been previously
held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the power of Parliament to
amend the constitution was limited.
A limited amending power is one of the basic features of our Constitution
and therefore, the limitations on that power can not be destroyed.
The Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that
very power into an absolute power.
Constitution is supreme not the parliament.
Doctrine of Basic Structure was reinforced from the Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala case.
DIGVIJAY GANPATI 18
