Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr
1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with
interpretation of Golakhnath 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.
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 1 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] S.C.C. 364 (Civil Appeals Nos. 143, 203-242, 274 & 309 of 1971). Judgment dated April 26,
1971 upheld the majority judgment of the Kerala High Court in V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala A.I.R.
1971 Kerala 98 whereby certain, sections of the Act were struck down.
5. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth 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:
65. The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969).
66. The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971).
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 Constitutional 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 S.C.R. 762 was rightly decided or not. However, as I see it, the
question whether Golak Nath's [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 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 abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and
expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claim that democracy can
even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of
Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under
Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
FOR MORE DETAILS CLICK Kesavananda_Bharati_..._vs_State_Of_Kerala_And_Anr
