Supreme Court launches webpage on Kesavananda Bharati judgment for law analysis
Presenting individual judgments of the 13 judges, it is written in Hindi and English
By: : Nilima Pathak
Update: 2023-04-24 07:00 GMT
Supreme Court launches webpage on Kesavananda Bharati judgment for law analysis Presenting individual judgments of the 13 judges, it is written in Hindi and English The Supreme Court has launched a webpage to mark the 50th anniversary of the judgment on the Kesavananda Bharati case to help with research in law. The judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala was delivered on...
Supreme Court launches webpage on Kesavananda Bharati judgment for law analysis
Presenting individual judgments of the 13 judges, it is written in Hindi and English
The Supreme Court has launched a webpage to mark the 50th anniversary of the judgment on the Kesavananda Bharati case to help with research in law.
The judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala was delivered on 24 April 1973. It held that Parliament could not use its constituent power to alter the essential features of the Constitution of India.
Speaking at the launch, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the webpage, including the case notes and written submissions, could be analyzed the world over.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was heard by a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme Court, making it the largest bench in Indian legal history. The bench comprised then Chief Justice of India SM Sikri, Justices JM Shelat, KS Hegde, AN Grover, AN Ray, P Jaganmohan Reddy, DG Palekar, HR Khanna, KK Mathew, MH Beg, SN Dwivedi, BK Mukherjea, and YV Chandrachud.
The case had raised crucial constitutional questions regarding the authority of the Parliament to modify the Indian Constitution. The verdict was delivered after hearing the arguments for six months.
The ruling established the fundamental structure of the Constitution, asserting that the Parliament could not change the specific features, including democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.
The judges had further ruled that the power of the judicial review was an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the Parliament could not revoke those through constitutional amendments.
The webpage provides reference material authored by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and advocate Ramesh D Garg.
It also includes written arguments and submissions of the petitioner, respondents, intervenors, and a brief submission by Nani Palkhivala, eminent lawyer and economist, on the second last day of the hearing.