In reaction to Supreme Court decisions, in 1971 Parliament passed the Twenty-fourth Amendment empowering it to amend any provision of the constitution, including the Fundamental Rights; the Twenty-fifth Amendment, making legislative decisions concerning proper land compensation nonjusticiable; and the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which added a constitutional article abolishing princely privileges and privy purses. On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court responded to the parliamentary offensive by ruling in the Keshavananda Bharati v the State of Kerala case that although these amendments were constitutional, the court still reserved for itself the discretion to reject any constitutional amendments passed by Parliament by declaring that the amendments cannot change the constitution's "basic structure."
During the 1975-77 Emergency, Parliament passed the Forty-second Amendment in January 1977, which essentially abrogated the Keshavananda ruling by preventing the Supreme Court from reviewing any constitutional amendment with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification. The Forty-second Amendment's fifty-nine clauses stripped the Supreme Court of many of its powers and moved the political system toward parliamentary sovereignty. However, the Forty-third and Forty-fourth amendments, passed by the Janata government after the defeat of Indira Gandhi in March 1977, reversed these changes. In the Minerva Mills case of 1980, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its authority to protect the basic structure of the constitution. However, in the Judges Transfer case on December 31, 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the government's authority to dismiss temporary judges and transfer high court justices without the consent of the chief justice.
How many judges sat on the bench to hear the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973?
13. The largest ever Bench of the Supreme Court was constituted to hear what would, out of the thousands of cases involving Fundamental Rights, be called THE Fundamental Rights case. The question to be considered was Parliament's power to amend the Constitution with regard to Fundamental Rights, especially in the light of recent Land Reform Legislation which kept getting struck down by the Supreme Court as being violative of the Right to Property. A previous judgment of the Supreme Court in 1967, Golaknath v. Union of Indian, given by a 11 Judge Bench had stated that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all and caused some concern among commentators and Parliament alike. In the Keshavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court overruled the Golaknath case, but introduced a new concept which would change the face of Constitutional law in India and abroad forever.
Which famous doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1973 case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala?
Basic Structure. The roots of the Basic Structure doctrine can be traced to the arguments of eminent Supreme Court lawyer, MK Nambyar in the very first Fundamental Rights case, AK Gopalan v. Union of India in 1950. It kept appearing in limited forms in other landmark Fundamental Rights cases, but was fully enunciated by the Supreme Court only in Kesavananda Bharati. BY a 7-6 majority, the Supreme Court held that there were some parts of the Constitution which constitute the very heart of the existence of the Indian State and Polity, such as democracy, judicial review of executive action, separation of powers, etc. This was based on the fact that some parts of the Constitution could not be amended as easily as others and this, thus meant that the framers originally intended for some parts to be more vital to the existence of the Indian State than others. The doctrine was extended, again by a majority of 7-6, to state that Fundamental Rights were included in this Basic Structure. However, by a majority of 7-6, it was also held that the right to property was not a Fundamental Right of the same kind as the Right to life etc., and hence it could not be protected by the Basic Structure doctrine from amendment by the Legislature. The judgement which made all the difference was the one by Khanna J, who would also go on to write a courageous dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case in 1976 during the Emergency. While he agreed with the majority on the Basic Structure Doctrine being part of the Constitution, he differed when it came to the Right to Property. As a result, a fairly decent compromise was arrived at after 1500+ pages of judgment. Fundamental Rights could not be amended recklessly, but land reform could be carried out as the Right to Property was not a Fundamental Right covered by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment