“ This case is famous for the victory of Indian Constitution, and is remarkable for the fight between the Parliament and Judiciary ”
If you are a law aspirant then you must remember the date 24 April, 1973 not only for the birthdate of Sachin Tendulkar but also on the same date this remarkable case was decided, which has been playing a great role between Judiciary and Parliament from then till today.
The story begins with GOLAKNATH CASE, 1967, in which the petitioner challenged the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 under Article 32 for violation of his fundamental rights. The Apex Court ruled,
“Parliament cannot take away or abridge and amend any of the fundamental rights, even cannot touch, because these are sacrosanct in nature”.
After this debacle, Parliament passed the 24th and 25th Amendment Act in 1971 and overruled the verdict of Golaknath Case, and Expressed that,
“ we, the Parliament can Amend Anything in the Constitution, and Judiciary have no power to review ”.
Between the conflicts, Supreme Court got an opportunity to review the Amendment Acts in 1973, when the famous case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala came before the Apex Court, where petitioner challenged these Amendments under Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
First Time in the Indian Judiciary, thirteen judges forgathered to hear this case, on 24 April, 1973, a very divided Judgement was passed by the majority of seven judges, including chief Justice S.M. Sikiri, and was decided by a thin margin of 7–6 . In this case Justice H.R. KHANNA laid down the Principle of BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE for the Constitution, which cannot be altered or destroyed by any of the Constitutional Amendments Acts passed by the legislation.
In Kesavananda case, Majority of judges Held,
“ Verdict of GOLAKNATH Case was not correct and Government can Amend the fundamental rights by the virtue of Article 13(4) and Article 368(3), and the Constitution by Article 368, but without changing the basic structure and nature of the Constitution ” ,
“ Section 2(a), 2(b) and first part of section 3 of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 is valid but second part of section 3 is unconstitutional, which prevents Judiciary from judicial review ”
And Court further held that,
“ Preamble is the Integral Part of the Constitution and it is Amendable, but not Justifiable in the administration of justice ”
KEY PERSONS :
Sri Kesavananda Bharati, chief of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu Mutt located in Edneer, Kerala.
N.A. Palkhivala ( Nanabhoy Palkhivala – Wikipedia ), very intelligent and intellectual person and eminent jurist, did the advocacy in this case.
INTERESTING QUESTIONS : MOST Relevant to this Landmark Case.
Why Sri Kesavananda Bharati approached supreme Court??
His fundamental rights inherited in Article 26 were violated by the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendment Act and the Land Reform Act, 1963 and Land Reform (Amendment) Act, 1969 & 1971 of Kerala Government and the lands of his Mutt was being acquired by the government and he did not get any relief from Kerala High Court.
Why three Most Senior Judges, J. Shelat, J. Hegde and J. Grower RESIGNED after this verdict ???
After this landmark Judgement, C.J. SIKIRI retired on 25th April, 1973, one day after the Judgement and as per the Tradition, next chief justice should be the most senior Judge in supreme Court, but the Government was not happy with the verdict. so, neglected three seniors, and on 26th April, appointed Justice A.N RAY as chief justice, the Senior Dissenter in this case, who was at 4th on the basis of seniority, So Judges resigned against the unbelievable step opted by the government.
What was the LOGIC BEHIND CONSTITUTING 13 JUDGES Bench ???
Authority and influence of a Precedent (Article 141) depends on the number of judges. Generally, to overrule any verdict of the court there must be the same number of Judges in a constitutional bench or more than that number. In GOLAKNATH Case there was 11 Judges, so to resolve this case, C.J. SIKIRI decided to Constitute 13 Judges Constitutional Bench.
When Government of India headed by Indira acquired certain lands it was done without giving them adequate compensation as Constitution provided for payment of compensation..Accordingly, issue came before the apex court in the case of Golak Nath versus State of Punjab and they quashed the orders acquiring land. Thereafter , 32nd amendment was made to the Constitution replacing the word compensation by amount and this amendment powered the government to grant an amount only , not necessarily market value broadly known as compensation. Accorxingly , acqjisations were made and issue challeged in the case as quoted by you before the apdx court which held that amendment can be made in the constitution without disturbing the basjc character of the constitution and amendment was ordered to be in order.
Was there any attempt made to overrule this case by Judiciary ???
Yes , it was, by the then C.J. Ray, who again constituted 13th Judges Bench and tried to review the case, but he could not succeed, due to the plea made by Palkhivala, to not disturb the recent verdict. Till today there is no such verdict, laid down by such a large Bench, it was first and last in the history of Indian Judiciary.
CONCLUSION :
A Great salute to the Supreme Court, Kesavananda Bharati, N.A. Palkhivala and the others Patrons, who played a important role to save our Democracy, our Supreme Law and our fundamental rights, which we exercise today.
I, as a law student, is of the view that, In this tussle or fight neither Judiciary win nor Parliament but Our Constitution.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.