Kesavananda Bharati Case – Judicial Evolution
Page 2 – From Golaknath to NJAC
Pre-Kesavananda Phase
1️⃣ Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
2️⃣ Golaknath Case (1967)
The Court reversed its earlier view and ruled that Parliament could NOT amend Fundamental Rights. This created a constitutional deadlock.
The Turning Point – Kesavananda (1973)
The Court struck a middle path:
- Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights.
- But cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
📚 Post-Kesavananda Developments
3️⃣ Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Court applied Basic Structure Doctrine to invalidate a constitutional amendment affecting election disputes.
4️⃣ Minerva Mills Case (1980)
Reaffirmed that Parliament’s amending power is limited and emphasized balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
5️⃣ NJAC Case (2015)
The Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment, holding judicial independence as part of Basic Structure.
Doctrinal Significance
- Established Constitutional Supremacy
- Strengthened Judicial Review
- Prevented majoritarian excess
- Preserved democratic continuity
Conceptual Insight
The Basic Structure Doctrine is not written in the Constitution. It is a judicially evolved safeguard ensuring that constitutional identity remains intact.
🎯 Mains Enrichment
- Compare Parliamentary Sovereignty (UK) vs Constitutional Supremacy (India)
- Explain Limited Government concept
- Discuss Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach
Conclusion
Kesavananda Bharati is not just a case—it is the constitutional shield of Indian democracy. Its evolution through subsequent judgments demonstrates the living nature of the Constitution.
© Shaktimatha Today News | Special Topic – Constitutional Evolution Series
No comments:
Post a Comment