Read on Twitter
Taking a break from our everyday conversations on criminal law, on the eve of 47th anniversary of the legendary case titled as #KeshavanandaBharati, let us visit few interesting aspects of the case today.
47 years ago on 24th April, 13 eminent judges of the Supreme Court assembled to pronounce the judgment on retirement day for Chief Justice #Sikri in #KeshvanandaBharati after having heard legal luminaries like #Palkhivala, #Daphtary, #Chagla, #Seervai, & #Niren De among others.
The marathon hearing ran for 68 days (or 66 days as few contend). 13 judges pronounced judgments. By a majority of 7:6 (or 6.7:6.3), it was held that that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution except “the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.”
Ever since Independence, Judiciary and Parliament have had conflicts over guardianship of the Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati was the culmination of this conflict. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in #GolakNath held that Parliament could not amend or alter any fundamental right.
Two years later, Indira Gandhi led govt nationalised 14 major banks which was struck down by the Supreme Court, although it upheld the right of Parliament to nationalise banks and other industries.
In 1970, Indira Gandhi led govt abolished the Privy Purses which was also struck down by SC. Govt was by now determined to curb powers of the judiciary & it introduced a series of constitutional amendments to nullify the Golak Nath, Bank Nationalisation & Privy Purses judgments.
Govt later on attempted moves to cultivate a & #39;committed judiciary& #39; & grab powers of Constitutional Courts via tribunalization etc through the 42nd Amendment. In a nutshell, these amendments made then gave Parliament uncontrolled power to alter/abolish any fundamental right.
The core question in #KeshavanandaBharati, popularly known as the Fundamental Rights Case, was: did Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution or was there any implied or inherent limitation on such amending power?
