Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr

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

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980 CriLJ 636, 1982 (1) SCALE 713
Author: O B Kailasam
Bench: Y Chandrachud, A Gupta, N Untwalia, P Bhagwati, R Sarkaria
JUDGMENT
(for himself and on behalf of Chandrachud, C. I. and A.C. Gupta and N. L. Untwalia, JJ.) (Majority view)
1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death
penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in
Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.
2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances : Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of
1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of
Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence
and dismissed his appeal.
3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of
Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by
the courts below would be "special reasons" for awarding, the death sentence as required under Section 354(3)
of the CrPC, 1973.
4. Shri H. K. Puri, appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant, Bachan Singh, in Criminal Appeal
No. 273 of 1979, contended that in view of the ratio of Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. (1979) 3 SCR 646,
the courts below were not competent to impose the extreme penalty of death on the appellant It was submitted
that neither the circumstance that the appellant was previously convicted for murder and committed these
murders after he had served out the life sentence in the earlier case, nor the fact that these three murders were
extremely heinous and inhuman, constitutes a "special reason" for imposing the death sentence within the
meaning of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1974. Reliance for this argument was placed on Rajendra Prasad
(ibid) which, according to the counsel, was on facts very similar, if not identical, to that case.
5. Kailasam, J. was of opinion that the majority view in Rajendra Prasad taken by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., who
spoke for himself and D.A. Desai, J., was contrary to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Jagmohan
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , inter alia, on these aspects:
(i) In Rajendra Prasad, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. observed:
The main focus of our judgment is on this poignant gap in 'human rights jurisprudence' within the limits of the
Penal Code, impregnated by the Constitution. To put it pithily, a world order voicing the worth of the human
person, a cultural legacy charged with compassion, an interpretative liberation from colonial callousness to
life and liberty, a concern for social justice as setting the rights of individual justice, interest With the
inherited text of the Penal Code to yield the goals desiderated by the Preamble and Articles 14, 19 and 21.

FOR MORE OF THIS CLICK Bachan_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab