Judicial Reforms

Supreme Court makes video on Kesavananda Bharati Verdict

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Kesavananda Bharati Verdict (1973), Basic Structure

Mains level: Read the attached story

kesav

Central Idea

  • The Supreme Court of India released a video in 10 Indian languages, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment delivered on April 24, 1973.
  • The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, redefining the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

  • Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgment introduced the basic structure doctrine, asserting that the Constitution has an inherent framework that cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.
  • 7-6 Decision: The Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, established its authority to invalidate constitutional amendments violating this basic structure.
  • Key Outcomes:
    1. Limitation on Parliamentary Power: The doctrine restricts Parliament’s ability to amend key constitutional features like the separation of powers.
    2. Judicial Review Reinforcement: It built upon the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, allowing for the review of amendments affecting the Constitution’s basic structure.
    3. Article 31-C and Judicial Review: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 31-C’s first provision, stating that amendments implementing Directive Principles, which do not disturb the basic structure, are not subject to judicial review.

Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine

  • Dilution of Parliamentary Powers: Critics argue that the doctrine undermines parliamentary sovereignty and disrupts the separation of powers.
  • Ambiguity Concerns: The doctrine’s perceived vagueness and subjectivity in judicial review have also been points of contention.

Landmark Cases Involving the Doctrine

  • Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the Kesavananda doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the elections of top officials from judicial scrutiny.
  • Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated a clause in Article 368, asserting that Parliament’s constituent power had no limitations.
  • P Sambamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1986): The Court struck down part of the 32nd Amendment related to the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh.
  • L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997): The Court nullified a portion of the 42nd Amendment that established administrative tribunals and excluded High Court judicial review.

Significance of the Judgment and the Doctrine

  • Empowerment of Judicial Review: The doctrine underpins the judiciary’s authority to review and potentially override constitutional amendments by Parliament.
  • Clarification of Article 368: It distinguishes Article 368 as a procedural mechanism for amendment, not a power to alter the Constitution’s core or basic structure.
  • Harmony with Legislative Authority: Justice Shastri emphasized that judicial review is a constitutional duty, not an attempt to undermine legislative power.
  • Checks and Balances System: The Kesavananda Bharati verdict underscored that judicial review serves as a check and balance, ensuring constitutional functionaries remain within their prescribed limits.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch