India, constitutional changes, state of Kerala, Kesavananda Bharati, Supreme Court of India, constitutional issues, parliament's democracy, India's constitution, DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy, Indian Constitution, Land Reform Acts, democracy of India, 1975, 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Constitutional amendment, article 13 of the Constitution
Perhaps the most recognized constitutional decision within the Supreme Court of India reflects on the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala. While the Supreme Court ruled that there was no implied limitation on Parliament's powers on amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India held that no proposed changes to the constitution could harm the Basic Structure Doctrine, and through that, established the right of the Supreme Court to review, and therefore, to establish supremacy on constitutional issues. Although the decision by the Supreme Court of India on the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala was said to have played a huge role in upholding the parliament's democracy, as many of the implications of the case have become apparent, it turns out clear that the case's complexity and, in some cases, lack of clarity on some critical issues have left a lot to get decided by posterity; the most significant of the issues being what constitutes the basic structure of India's constitution.
[...] In the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld Land Reform Acts, as well as the Amendment Acts that had gotten challenged. Ideally, the only provision that got struck out was the portion regarding the 25[th] Amendment Act, which restricted the possibility of judicial review. Apart from the restriction imposed on the capability of the House to change the basic structure of the Constitution, the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala was perceived as an overall success for the Administration (Singh, 2021). [...]
[...] India: Kesavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala Author. Author Affiliation. Course. Instructor. Date. Context Perhaps the most recognized constitutional decision within the Supreme Court of India reflects on the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala. While the Supreme Court ruled that there was no implied limitation on Parliament's powers on amendments to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India held that proposed no changes to the constitution could harm the Basic Structure Doctrine, and through that, established the right of the Supreme Court to review, and therefore, to establish supremacy on constitutional issues. [...]
[...] And neither the second clause of Article 13 nor the Preamble limits the power of the Constitutional Amendment in any way. Sixth, the concept of power when it got to the Constitutional amendment was unrestricted and broad, and the power to change the constitution implied the power to add, appeal, or change any clause of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, in response to the case of Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala also proposed that: "The Indian Constitution is a social document first and foremost. [...]
[...] And after evaluation of different aspects, the verdict was delivered and was based on clearly defined reasoning. It is reasonable that the bench could have feared that supposing the house was granted unlimited power to change the constitution, the power would get misused and the then administration would change the law according to its desires and will. And indeed, if the House had unrestricted authority over the constitution, making changes to the basic structure of Doctrine, the fundamental characteristics, as well as the spirit of the law, would get changed by the government. [...]
[...] Ideally, the start of the dispute that led to Kesavananda Bharati reflects on the interpretation of Article 368 within the Constitution of India, which allows the House to amend the country's Constitution. And while the article itself might get perceived as unambiguous, the precise extent and scope of the power held by the House to change the Constitution remained a seriously contested concept, thereby resulting in the verdict on Golak Nath where the Supreme Court reasoned that the House, in the exercise of its power to change the Constitution, had no power to change the critical rights under part 3 of the Constitution. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
