How is Supreme Court decision in Kesavananda bharthi v State of Kerala related to Article 368?

Posted on by Author

How is Supreme Court decision in Kesavananda bharthi v State of Kerala related to Article 368?

Majority judgement. Upholding the validity of clause 1 of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights.

Does the Parliament have power to amend the Constitution answer in the light of judgments which paved way for doctrine of basic structure?

Golak Nath’s case is over-ruled. Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid.

READ:   What is the most famous thing Neil Armstrong ever said?

Why is the Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala regarded as a basic structure case explain the impact of this decision?

Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, questioning the Kerala government’s attempts, under two-state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its (mutt) property. The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been regarded as a tenet of Indian constitutional law.

Which among the following was the outcome of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala case 1973?

Notes: In the Kesavananda Bharati Case v/s State of Kerala Case 1973 the Supreme Court opined that Preamble is part of the constitution and is subject to amending power of the parliament.

Which of the following statement is correct regarding Article 368 of the Constitution of India?

It states that the Parliament may, in the exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose.

What is Article 13 of Indian Constitution Upsc?

Article 13 : Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

READ:   Does Superman ever use a weapon?

Does Article 13 include constitutional amendments?

Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights is contained in Article 368. Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13 (2) the case was rightly decided. Amendment includes amendment to all provisions of the Constitution.

Can Parliament amend Part 3 of the Constitution?

Parliament has limited power to amend the Constitution. The parliament cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution. Article 368 does not provide the power to the parliament regarding the Amendment in Part III of the Constitution. The Parliament by amending Article 368 cannot increase its Amendment powers.

What is the relationship between Article 13 and Article 368?

The conclusion of the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad case was reiterated by the majority with regards to the relationship between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution. The court smoothly held that the power given to Parliament by virtue of Art. 368 can be exercised over each provision of the Indian Constitution.

READ:   What happens if you fight a co worker?

What is Article 368 in the Constitution of India?

Article 368 in The Constitution Of India 1949 368. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor

Does article 368 of the Constitution limit the jurisdiction of High Courts?

Article 368 provides for general and strict power to the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution. Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan was a case where the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged. The question raised before the court was that if the seventeenth amendment limits the jurisdiction of High Courts.

What is Article 368 in Golaknath case?

In Golaknath case, Article 368 was considered to be a provision which provides ‘process to amend’ and not ‘power to amend’. The court held in this classic case that the power to amend the Constitution is to be found in Art. 368 itself.