Core Arguments on the Amending Power under Article 368 The power of amendment under Article 368 is not absolute and is subject to limitations inherent in the Constitution's basic structure, ensuring that fundamental features like the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic republican form cannot be abrogated (!) (!) . Parliament's amending authority derives from the Constitution itself and must operate within its framework, preventing any alteration that destroys essential elements such as the rule of law or judicial review (!) (!) . The term "amendment" in Article 368 implies changes that improve or adapt the Constitution but does not extend to repealing or abrogating its foundational principles, as this would render the Constitution self-destructive (!) (!) . Fundamental rights form part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be wholly abrogated through amendments, as they represent the conscience of the document and protect individual dignity (!) (!) . The Preamble's declaration of India as a sovereign democratic republic embodies unalterable features, and amendments cannot contradict this by undermining sovereignty or democratic governance (!) (!) . Judicial review is an essential attribute of the basic structure, ensuring that amendments do not violate core constitutional principles like equality and liberty (!) (!) . The distribution of powers between the Union and States is a basic feature, and amendments cannot disrupt federalism by centralizing authority excessively (!) (!) . The word "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments, prohibiting any amendment that abridges fundamental rights, as these are inviolable protections (!) (!) . Amendments must preserve the Constitution's identity; those altering its essential features, such as the separation of powers, are invalid (!) (!) . The basic structure doctrine limits amendments to variations that align with the Constitution's core objectives, like justice, liberty, and equality (!) (!) . Parliament cannot use Article 368 to convert the Constitution into an instrument of its own supremacy, as this would negate the people's sovereign will (!) (!) . The amending process under Article 368 is procedural but constrained by substantive limits to maintain the Constitution's foundational elements (!) (!) . Rights like equality (Article 14) and freedoms (Article 19) are integral to the basic structure and cannot be diluted beyond reasonable restrictions (!) (!) . The unity and integrity of the nation, as reflected in the Preamble, cannot be fragmented through amendments that erode national cohesion (!) (!) . Amendments affecting the judiciary's independence or the democratic process violate the Constitution's essence and are void (!) (!) . The doctrine ensures that the Constitution evolves without losing its character, balancing change with continuity (!) (!) . Parliament's power is derivative from the Constitution, not superior to it, preventing self-serving alterations (!) (!) . Fundamental rights and directive principles together form the basic structure, requiring harmonious interpretation (!) (!) . The amending power cannot be used to create a totalitarian framework by overriding democratic safeguards (!) (!) . Judicial oversight protects the Constitution from amendments that undermine its democratic foundations (!) (!) .

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru vs State of Kerala

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1973 Supreme(SC) 163

S. M. SIKRI, 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, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Intervener (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Sunil Kumar Roy, Syed Akbar Begum, Shantilal Dayabhai Patelm, Motilal Gangaram Doshi, M. H. Doshi, H.G. Doshi, Sudhir Kumar Roy, Shilendu Sekhar Roy, Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd, Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd., Phaltan Sugar Farm Ltd., Ravalgaon Sugar Farms Ltd., Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., Maharashtra Sugar and Allied Industries, Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate., Godavari Sugar Mills, Lakshmiwadi, Godawari Sugar Mills, Sakarwadi, Chako Varkey, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1972):- Mr. N.A. Palkhivala, Mr. C.K. Daphtary Mr. M.C. Chagla, Mr. Soli Sorabji, in. Anil B. Divan, and Mr. K.T. Harindranath, Senior Advocates, with M/s. J.B. Dadachanji, Mr. B.G. Murdeshwar, Mr. Anwarulla Pasha, Mr. Rainder Narain, Mr. O.C. Mathur Mr. S. Swarup and Mr. S.I. Thakore, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (In Writ Petn. No. 351 of 1972):- Mr. N. A. Palkhivala, Mr. M.C. Chagla and Mr. Soli Sorabji, Senior Advocates with Mr. B.G. Murdeshwar, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, S. Swarup, A.G. Mensses, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (In Writ Petn. No. 352 of 1972):- Mr. Soli J. Sorabli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.G. Murdeshwar, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, S. Swarup, A.G. Mensses, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (In Writ Petn. No. 373 of 1972):- Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.N. Banerjee, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji. Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, P.C. Bhartari, S. Swarup, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (In Writ Petn. No. 374 of 1972):- Mr. M.C. Chagla and Mr. C.K. Daphtary, Sr. Advocates with Mr. R.N. Banerjee, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, P.C. Bhartari, S. Swarup and Mr. N.A. Palkhivala, Advocates.
For the Petitioners (In Writ Petn. No. 400 of 1972):- M/s. N. A. Palkhivala and C.K. Daphtary, Sr. Advocates with Mr. R.N. Banerjee, M/s. J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, P.C. Bhartari, and S. Swarup, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 1 (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. H.M. Seervai, A.G. Maharashtra, Mr. M.M. Abdul Khader, A.G. Kerala, Mr. T.R. Andbyarujina and Mr. K.M. K. Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 2 (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General India, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. General, M/s. R. N. Sachthey, Ram Panjwani and Miss Sumitra Chakravarty, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 1 (In Writ Petn. No. 351 of 1972):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General India, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. General India, M/s. R. N. Sachthey and G. L. Sanghi Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 1 (In Writ Petn. No. 352 of 1972):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General India, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. General India, Mr. D. P. Singh, Senior Advocate and M/s. R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 1 (In Writ Petn. No. 373 of 1972):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General. India, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Sol. Genl. India, Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, Senior Advocate and Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 (In Writ Petn. No. 374 of 1972):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, R.H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents (In Writ Petn. No. 400 of 1972):- Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General,R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar and S. N. Prasad, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, A. G. Andhra Pradesh, Mr. T. V. S. Narsimhachari and Mr. P. Parameshwara Rao, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Assam (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Dr. J. C. Medhi, A. G. Assam, Mr. Moinul Haque Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Bihar (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):-
Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, A. G. Bihar, Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Jammu and Kashmir (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970) M/s. R. K. Garg, O. N. Tikku, S. C. Aggarwala and Vineet Kumar, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. Y. S. Dharmadhikari, A. G. Madhya Pradesh, Mr. J. P. Bajpai, Dy, A. G. M. P. and Mr. I. N. Shroff Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Maharashtra (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. H. M. Seervai, A. G. Maharashtra and M/s. T. R. Andhyarujina and S. P. Nayar, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Manipur (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Meghalaya (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. Nirendra Mohan Lahiri, A. G., Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Mysore (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. R N. Byra Reddy, A. G., Mr. Chandra Kant Urs, Government Advocate Mysore and Mr. M. Barthakar, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Nagaland (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. S. K. Ghose, A. G., M/s. Naunit Lal, H. K. Sema and A. R. Barthakar, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Orissa (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. Gangadhar Rath, A. G., M/s. Gobind Das and B. Parthasarathy, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Punjab (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Rajasthan (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Dr. L. M. Singhvi, A. G. and Mr. K. Baldev Mehta, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Tamil Nadu (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, A. G. (Present only on 9-11-1972), Mr. A. V. Rangam, Mr. N. S. Siram (Present only on 23-2-1973) and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates.
For the Advocates-General of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970)
:- Mr. S. N. Kakkar, A. G. and Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petn. No. 351-352 of 1972):- Mr. P. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate General and M/s. G. Narayana Rao and P. Parameshwara Rao, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Bihar (Writ Petn. No. 351-352 of 1972):- Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh Advocate-General and Mr. U.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Manipur (Writ Petn. No. 351-352 of 1972):- Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, Advocate General and Mr. R.N. Sachthey, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Orissa (Writ Petn. No. 351-352 of 1972):- Mr. Gangadhar Rath, Advocate General and Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, Advocate.
For the Advocates-General of Punjab (Writ Petn. No. 351-352 of 1972):- Mr. R.N. Sachthey, Advocate.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Sunil Kumar Roy:Mr. Binayak Banerjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Somen Bose, Mr. Suprakash Banerjee and Mr. C. S. Chatterjee, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Syed Akbar Begum and Shantilal Dayabhai Patel, M/s. G. B. Raikar, S. S. Javali, R. L. Roshan and H. K. Puri, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Motilal Gangaram Doshi, M. H. Doshi and H. G. Doshi:M/s. D. M. Parulekar, C. K. Ratnaparkhi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Sudhir Kumar Roy and Shilendu Sekhar Roy:Mr. Mahindra Nath Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Somen Bose, Sohendra Sekhar Roy and G. S. Chatteriee, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970):- Chako Varkey, Miss Lily Thomas, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 135 of 1970 and 373 of 1972):- Godavari Sugar Mill & Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd., Mt. N.A. Palkhivala, Sr. Advocate (for Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. only) Mr. Anil Diwan, Sr. Advocate, M/s. J.B. DEadachanji, S.I. Thakore, P.M. Dandekar, D.M. Popat, M.L. Bhakta, Ravinder Narian and O.C. Mathur, Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. Phalton Sugar Works Ltd. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd., Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd., Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., Maharashtra Sugar and Allied Induestries Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate, Godawari Sugar Mills, Lakshmivadi, Godavari Sugar Mills, Sakarwadi M/s. N.A. Palkhivala, Anil Divan, Sr. Advocates and M/s. S.I. Thakore. P.M. Dandekar. D.M. Popat, M.L. Bhakta, J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur and S. Swarup, Advocates.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 351 of 1972):- Mr. P.L. Lakhanpal, In Person Later represented by Mr. Basudeo Prasad, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Interveners (In Writ Petn. No. 351 of 1972):- Ravinder Parkash, M/s. Santok Singh and V. Mayakrishnan, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Core Arguments on the Amending Power under Article 368

The power of amendment under Article 368 is not absolute and is subject to limitations inherent in the Constitution's basic structure, ensuring that fundamental features like the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic republican form cannot be abrogated (!) (!) .
Parliament's amending authority derives from the Constitution itself and must operate within its framework, preventing any alteration that destroys essential elements such as the rule of law or judicial review (!) (!) .
The term "amendment" in Article 368 implies changes that improve or adapt the Constitution but does not extend to repealing or abrogating its foundational principles, as this would render the Constitution self-destructive (!) (!) .
Fundamental rights form part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be wholly abrogated through amendments, as they represent the conscience of the document and protect individual dignity (!) (!) .
The Preamble's declaration of India as a sovereign democratic republic embodies unalterable features, and amendments cannot contradict this by undermining sovereignty or democratic governance (!) (!) .
Judicial review is an essential attribute of the basic structure, ensuring that amendments do not violate core constitutional principles like equality and liberty (!) (!) .
The distribution of powers between the Union and States is a basic feature, and amendments cannot disrupt federalism by centralizing authority excessively (!) (!) .
The word "law" in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments, prohibiting any amendment that abridges fundamental rights, as these are inviolable protections (!) (!) .
Amendments must preserve the Constitution's identity; those altering its essential features, such as the separation of powers, are invalid (!) (!) .
The basic structure doctrine limits amendments to variations that align with the Constitution's core objectives, like justice, liberty, and equality (!) (!) .
Parliament cannot use Article 368 to convert the Constitution into an instrument of its own supremacy, as this would negate the people's sovereign will (!) (!) .
The amending process under Article 368 is procedural but constrained by substantive limits to maintain the Constitution's foundational elements (!) (!) .
Rights like equality (Article 14) and freedoms (Article 19) are integral to the basic structure and cannot be diluted beyond reasonable restrictions (!) (!) .
The unity and integrity of the nation, as reflected in the Preamble, cannot be fragmented through amendments that erode national cohesion (!) (!) .
Amendments affecting the judiciary's independence or the democratic process violate the Constitution's essence and are void (!) (!) .
The doctrine ensures that the Constitution evolves without losing its character, balancing change with continuity (!) (!) .
Parliament's power is derivative from the Constitution, not superior to it, preventing self-serving alterations (!) (!) .
Fundamental rights and directive principles together form the basic structure, requiring harmonious interpretation (!) (!) .
The amending power cannot be used to create a totalitarian framework by overriding democratic safeguards (!) (!) .
Judicial oversight protects the Constitution from amendments that undermine its democratic foundations (!) (!) .

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 amende

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SOUTHERN FISHERIES CORPORATION VS CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF COCHIN - 1977 0 Supreme(Ker) 90: Explicitly overruled. Text states: "The said decision has been overruled in Kesavananda Bharathy's case (AIR. 1973 S. C. 1461)." This refers to State of Punjab (AIR. 1967 SC. 1643), identified as overruled by Kesavananda Bharati.

State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362: Deemed overruled. Text states: "Policy which should be deemed to have been overruled by the decision of this Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati, (1973) Supp." Refers to a prior policy or case overruled by Kesavananda Bharati.

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala VS Ashok Kumar Sehgal - 1989 0 Supreme(P&H) 487: Overruled. Text states: "Golak Nath s case (supra) was overruled in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadgalvaru V/s. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461."

Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala VS Ashok Kumar Sehgal - 1989 0 Supreme(P&H) 495: Overruled. Text states: "Golak Naths case (supra) was overruled in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadgalvaru V/s. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461."

Raymond Ltd. VS M. P. Electricity Board - 2000 0 Supreme(MP) 1037: Overruled. Text states: "AIR 1967 SC 1643] as such was subsequently overruled by the decision reported in Kesavananda" (refers to State of Punjab v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643).

VS STATE OF U P

VS UNION OF INDIA UOI

1996 0 Supreme(All) 1452](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500034166), Mafatlal Industries LTD. VS Union Of India - 1997 1 Supreme 684, Professor or H.P University vs Himachal Pradesh University - 1997 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3, L. Chandra Kumar VS Union of India and others - 1997 0 Supreme(Bom) 138, L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147, IVORY TRADERS AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 1997 0 Supreme(Del) 289, Anil Sabharwal VS State Of Haryana - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 536, Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta VS State Of U. P. - 1997 4 Supreme 450, Phoolan Devi VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Crimes (1997), ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C. M. M. , CALCUTTA VS STATE - 1997 0 Supreme(Cal) 231, Qucxova Sinal Cundo, through his Power of Attorney Shri Naraina Sinai Kirtany and others VS Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Department of Mines and others - 1997 0 Supreme(Bom) 276, Om Parkash Chautala VS State Of Haryana - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 1231, Ramesh Kumar Rajaymohan VS State of Maharashtra and others - 1998 0 Supreme(Bom) 81, KUNWAR RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH VS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 162, PRAYAG NARAIN VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 205, SAROJ GIRI VS VAYALAR RAVI - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 486, Lal Chand VS State Of Haryana - 1998 0 Supreme(P&H) 748, Assam State Electricity Board and Ors. VS Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 297, State Of H. P. VS Raja Mahendra Pal - 1999 3 Supreme 414, ASHISH KUMAR ROY VS UNION OF INDIA - 1999 0 Supreme(Cal) 175, SURENDER KUMAR SAHNI VS UNION OF INDIA - 1999 0 Supreme(Del) 386, I. R. Coelho: Paschim Banga Rajya Bhumi Jibi Sangha: Glanrock Estates Private LTD. VS State Of T. N. : Union Of India: State Of T. N. - 1999 8 Supreme 351, I. R. Coelho (Dead) By LRS. v. State of T.N. - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 66, I. R. Coelho (Dead) By LRS. v. State of T.N. - 1999 Supreme(Online)(SC) 140, State Of W. B. VS Kesoram Industries LTD. - 2004 1 Supreme 590, Indira Sawhney VS Union Of India - 1999 10 Supreme 270, Ashok Kumar Tripathi VS Union of India - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 942, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLINDS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 164, State Of Bihar VS Bal Mukund Sah - 2000 2 Supreme 409, Kamalu VS State of Kerala - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 307, Thoppil Sreekumar VS State Of Kerala - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 687, Sreekumar VS State of Kerala - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 427, Raymond LTD. VS M. P. Electricity Board - 2000 8 Supreme 185, D. K. ABDUL KHADER VS UNION OF INDIA - Dishonour Of Cheque (2001), Property Owners Association VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 2 Supreme 457, [RAIL INDIA T AND E SERVICES LTD

VS VIDYAWATI CONSTRN CO

2001 0 Supreme(All) 554](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500041676), UNION OF INDIA VS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 564, UNION OF INDIA VS CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 553, RAIL INDIA TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES LTD. VS VIDYAWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 552, B. R. Kapur VS State Of T. N. - 2001 7 Supreme 1, Sharique Ali VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 62, MANOJ DUBEY VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 260, SHAMBHU DAYAL VS UNION OF INDIA - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 312, Subhasis Chakravorty VS State of Meghalaya - 2002 0 Supreme(Gau) 110, In re : Arundhati Roy Suo Motu VS . - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 292, Chandra Prakash VS State of U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(SC) 2353, SHAMBHU DAYAL VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 486, Joginder Pal VS Naval Kishore Behal - 2002 4 Supreme 280, Luizinho Joaquim Faleiro VS State of Goa & others - 2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 774, FORUM FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE,REGD. VS VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 1072, Special Reference No. 1 Of 2002 VS Union Of India - 2002 7 Supreme 437, In The Matter of Special Reference - 2002 Supreme(Online)(SC) 82, Special Reference No. 1 Of 2002 VS Union of India - 2002 7 Supreme 437, T. M. A. Pai Foundation VS State of Karnataka - 2002 8 Supreme 359, OZAIRHUSAIN VS UNION OF INDIA - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 1697, T. M. A. Pai Foundation VS State of Karnataka - 2002 7 Supreme 359, JABALPUR BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF M. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 1153, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association VS State of M. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 1157, JABALPUR BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2002 0 Supreme(MP) 1156, Peoples Union For Civil Liberties (Pucl) Petitioners With Lok Satta And Association For Democratic Reforms Petitioners VS Union Of India - 2003 3 Supreme 93, GOVIND VS STATE (NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI) - 2003 0 Supreme(Del) 341, T. K. Rangarajan VS Government of T. N. - 2003 5 Supreme 256, Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu - 2003 Supreme(Online)(SC) 126, T. K. Rangarajan VS Government of T. N. - 2003 0 Supreme(Ori) 633, T. K. Rangarajan VS Government of Tamil Nadu - 2003 0 Supreme(Raj) 700, State of Tamil Nadu vs Government Employees - 2003 Supreme(Online)(SC) 56, Saurabh Chaudri VS Union Of India - 2004 1 Supreme 26, [Pushpak Jyoti

VS State of U. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2710](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500042820), PUSHPAK JYOTI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2707, Peoples Union For Civil Libertiespetitioners VS Union Of India - 2003 8 Supreme 756, State Of W. B. VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 53, COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PORT) VS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUS. AND C. EX. - 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 213, Thiru. R. Gandhi VS Union of India - 2004 0 Supreme(Mad) 552, Sadgi Investment (P. ) Ltd. VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 773, [Rajwant Prasad Yadav

VS State of U. P. - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 2235](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500040088), KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - 2004 0 Supreme(Kar) 692, The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Chennai and another VS Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers’ Association, Electricity Avenue, represented by its General Secretary, Mr. G. Balakrishnan, Chennai - 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 129, Indira Dattaram Patil VS Executive Officer, Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati temple Trust Management Committee - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 312, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - 2005 0 Supreme(Kar) 172, National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Gauri Roy - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 238, Major S. N. Tripathi VS Election Commission of India - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 559, Abdul Kalam VS State of Manipur - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 276, Janaganavadi Bharat VS Govt. of India - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1809, Munna Lal Gupta Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Shri Lakhan Lal Gupta VS State of U. P. through Chief Secretary, U. P. Urban Development Anubhag - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 908, Mangal Dev son of Ram Roop and Shashi Dewivedi wife of Mangal Dev VS State Election Commission through its Election Commissioner, The District - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 1017, Imkong Imchen VS Union of India - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 534, Kesari Devi VS State of U. P. , Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Collector/distt. Magistrate and Chief Development officer/Mukhya Adhikari - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2614, State Of Gujarat VS Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat - 2005 8 Supreme 697, State of Gujarat VS Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2447, NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DEPT OF EXCISE VS S. P. KHANNA - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 962, CHANDRA BHAN VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2430, All India Council for Technical Education VS Ombir Kaushik - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 1139, DLF UNIVERSAL LTD VS GREATER KAILASH II WELFARE ASSOCIATION - 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 122, HEERA LAL UMAR VS STATE OF U. P. - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 357, HEERA LAL UMAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 351, INDIAN AIRLINES LTD VS UOI - 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 253, J. K. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 643, J. K. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 641, J. K. Construction Engineers and Contractor VS Union of India - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 633, Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. LTD. VS Bombay Environmental Action Group - 2006 3 Supreme 49, Akhil Bharat Gosewa Sangh VS State Of A. P. - 2006 3 Supreme 691, B. SRINIVASA REDDY VS KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2006 0 Supreme(Kar) 318, Secretary State of Karnataka VS Umadevi - 2006 3 Supreme 415, OM PRAKASH SINGH VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (MADHYAMIK) - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1670, Om Prakash Singh son of Sri Purushottam Singh VS Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik), Azamgarh Region, District Inspector - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 1673, R. S. Garg VS State Of U. P. - 2006 6 Supreme 324, Kuldip Nayar VS Union of India - 2006 7 Supreme 44, M. Nagaraj VS Union of India - 2006 8 Supreme 89, Vasu Dev Singh VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 293, Janhit Manch VS State of Maharashtra - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 1882, Ajay Goswami VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 458, Raja Ram Pal VS Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha - 2007 1 Supreme 245, I. R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. VS State Of T. N. - 2007 1 Supreme 137, SURENDRA KUMAR PANDEY VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, BASTI - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 805, SUBHASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2007 0 Supreme(All) 1078, STAR INDIA P. LTD. VS TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA - 2007 0 Supreme(Del) 1357, Prithvi Raj VS State Election Commission, Punjab - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 1387, Girnar Traders VS State of Maharashtra - 2007 6 Supreme 25, Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine VS State of Bihar - 2007 8 Supreme 28, Karnataka Bank Ltd. VS State of A. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 93, Narmada Bachao Andolan VS State of M. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 252, Government of Andhra Pradesh VS Smt. P. Laxmi Devi - 2008 2 Supreme 472, Ekta Parishad (NGO) VS State of M. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 291, Ashoka Kumar Thakur VS Union of India & Others - 2008 3 Supreme 331, Balasaheb Dhondiram Jagdale VS State of Maharashtra - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 680, M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. VS M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 98, Utpal Kumar Das VS Court of the Munsif No. 1 - 2008 0 Supreme(Gau) 640, Adivaram Varthagargal Sangam Palani, rep. by its Secretary & Others VS The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary & Others - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 3883, DHARAM PAL SINGH CHAUHAN VS STATE OF U. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(All) 2499, Saraswati VS State of Rajasthan - 2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 2734, [SITA TRIVEDI

VS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MADHYAMIK U P ALLAHABAD

Oriental Gas LTD. VS State Of W. B. - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 255: Distinguished by contrast. Text states: "Balmadies Plantations' case has to be contrasted with..." (refers to State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg., but context distinguishes prior cases).

None identified. All cases have clear treatment indicators: explicit overruling for bad law cases; predominant positive citation/following for the majority; one instance of distinction. No ambiguous or mixed treatments without dominant categorization.

1973 Supreme(SC) 163

S. M. SIKRI, 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, Y. V. CHANDRACHUDHis Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru – AppellantVersusState of Kerala – Respondent

Core Arguments on the Amending Power under Article 368

Cases Referred (106)

Judicial Analysis

S. M. SIKRI, 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, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent