Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
constitutional general beginner real_caseThis case is like a bible for Constitutional law in India. The court had to deal with the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which said that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Article 368 (how amendments are made). The judgment ruled that Parliament can't make changes that affect the basic structure of the Constitution. They also said that a law passed by Parliament must be reasonable, just, and fair. This means that even the Parliament has limits and can't just do whatever it wants.
What do you guys think? Was this the right judgment? Or should Parliament have had more power to change the Constitution as they wanted?
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Bhai, sorry to clarify, but yeh case to sahi se samjhna hi padega. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) main Supreme Court ne Constitution Amendment Act, 1971 ko validate kiya, lekin woh Constitution ko 'basic structure' par hi sakti hai. Isse implication yeh hai ki Parliament ko Constitution mein koi bhi amendment karna hai, woh 'basic structure' par koi tanaav na pahunchaai. Chalo kya aapka sawal hain?