SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. Sikri, CJI, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala and another - Respondents
Writ Petitions Nos. 135 of 1970
with
Shri Raghunath Rao Ganpath Rao and N.H. Nawab Mohammed Iftikhar Ali Khan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 351 and 352 of 1972
with
Shethia Mining and Mfg. Corpn. Ltd. Etc. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 373 and 374 of 1972
with
The Oriental Coal Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another - Respondents
W.P. No. 400 of 1972
Decided On : 24-04-1973
JUDGMENT
S.M. Sikri, C.J.I.
I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golaknath's case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act. Part VII with Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.
Part I-Introduction.
2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (Act I of 1964) as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 (Act 35 of 1969) be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. He further prayed for an appropriate writ or order to issue during the pendency of the petition. This Court issued rule nisi on March 25, 1970.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1971 (Kerala Act No. 25 of 1971) was passed which received the assent of the President on August 7, 1971. The petitioner filed an application for permission to urge additional grounds and to impugn the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1971 (Kerala Act No. 25 of 1971).
4. In the meantime, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated April 26, 1971 in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, (1972) SCC 364 - (Civil Appeals Nos. 143, 203-242, 274 and 309 of 1971) D/d. 26.4.1971 : (reported in AIR 1972 SC 2097) upheld the majority judgment of the Kerala High Court in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1971 Ker 98 (FB) whereby certain sections of the Act were struck down.
5. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act came into force on November 5, 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act came into force on April 20, 1972 and the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act came into force on June 9, 1972. The effect of the Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following Acts in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution:
6. The petitioner then moved an application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the above constitutional amendments.
7. The Court allowed the application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of the writ petition on August 10, 1972 and issued notices to the Advocates-General to appear before this Court and take such part in the proceedings as they may be advised.
8. When the case was placed before the Constitution bench, it referred this case to a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned constitutional amendments.
9. Similar orders were passed in the other writ petitions.
10. The larger bench was accordingly constituted. It was then felt that it would be necessary to decide whether I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 was rightly decided or not. However, as I see it, the question whether Golak Nath's case was rightly decided or not does not matter because the real issue is different and of much greater importance, the issue being, what is the extent of the amending power conferred by Article 368 of the Constitution apart from Article 13(2) on Parliament?
11. The respondents claim that Parliament can
Akadasi Padhan Vs. State of Orissa
Attomey-General Vs. H.R.H. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
Attorney General Vs. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanovar 1957 A.C. 436.
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras
Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. State of Bombay
Babu Lal Parate Vs. State of Bombay
Balmadies Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Baroda Vs. Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.; (1962) 1 SCR 896 (899) .
Basheshar Nath Vs. C I. T., Delhi
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka Vs. State of Bombay
Bidi Supply Co. Vs. Union of India
Budhan Vs. State of Maharashtra (1955) 1 SCR 1045.
Burmah Construction Co. Vs. State of Orissa
Chiranjit Lal Vs. Union of India (1950) SCR 869.
City of Ahmedabad Vs. New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. (1971) 1 SCR 288.
Coleman and Cc. Vs. Union of India
Collector of Customs, Baroda Vs. Digvijaysinghji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.
Director of Customs, Baroda Vs. Digvijaysinhji Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Dr. N.B. Khare Vs. State of Delhi
Dwarkadas Shrinivas Vs. Sholapur Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd.
Garewal Vs. State of Punjab 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 792.
Ghulam Sarwar Vs. Union of India
Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
Hari Shankar Bagla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Keshavan Madhavan Menon Vs. State of Bombay 1951 SCR 228.
Khaiamian Wakt Estates etc. Vs. State of Madras
Kunjukutty Sahib Vs. State of Kerala, (1972) SCC 364 - (Civil Appeals Nos. 143, 203-242
Lachhman Das Vs. State of Punjab
Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur Vs. Union of India
Mangal Singh Vs. Union of India
Mohd. Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar
Mohd. Yakub Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Birla Cotton Mills (1968) 3 SCR 251.
Naresh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Navnit Lal Javeri Vs. Appellate Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
N.B. Jeejeebhoy Vs. Assistant Collector, Thana
Provincial Transport Service Vs. State Industrial Court
P. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector
Raj Narain Singh Vs. Chairman Patna Administration
Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1955) 2
Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. S.R. Tendolkar
Rashbihari Panda Vs. State of Orissa
Romesh Thapar Vs. State of Madras
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India. (1970) 3 SCR 530.
R.C. Cooper Vs. Union of India
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla Vs. Union of India
R.S. Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR. 225.
Sanjeevi Naidu Vs. State of Madras
Sankari Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India
Satwant Singh Vs. Passport Officer, New Delhi
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs. Union of India and State of Bihar
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Broach Borough Municipality (1970) 1 SCR 388.
Smt. Somavanti Vs. State of Punjab. (1963) 2 SCR 774.
Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of U.P.
South India Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India
State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Singh
State of Bihar Vs. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh. 1952 SCR 889.
State of Bihar Vs. Shailabala Devil 1952 SCR 654.
State of Bihar Vs. Sir Kameshwar Singh (1952) SCR 889.
State of Bombay Vs. F.N. Balsara
State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranojirao Shinde
State of Madras Vs. C.G. Menon
State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan
State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh
State of Travancore Cochin Vs. Bombay Go. Ltd. 1952 SCR 1112.
State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar)
State of West Bengal Vs. Bela Banerjee
State of West Bengal Vs. Subodh Gopal
State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India
S. Krishnan Vs. State of Madras
S.M. Sharma Vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1959) Supp 1 SCR 806.
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan
State of West Bengal Vs. Mrs. Bela Banerjee
Tika Ramji Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1956 SCR 393.
Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar Vs. Union of India (1970) SCR 732-737.
Union of India Vs. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon
U.N.R. Rao Vs. Smt Indira Gandhi (1971) 2 SCC 63 : AII 1971 SC 1002.
Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector
Vasantlal Sanjanwala Vs. State of Bombay
Venkataramana Vs. State of Mysore
Virendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. (1955) 1 SCR 415.
Vrajlal Manilal and Co. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
A. K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras
Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
Harishanker Bagla Vs. M. P. State
I.C. Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab
Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd.
State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava
State of West Bengal Vs. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.