Kesavananda Bharati ...

vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

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 Article

368.

12. On the side of the petitioners it is urged that the power of Parliament is much more limited. The
petitioners say that the Constitution gave the Indian citizen freedoms which were to subsist for ever
and the Constitution was drafted to free the nation from any future tyranny of the representatives of
the people. It is this freedom from tyranny which, according to the petitioners, has been taken away
by the impugned Article 31C which has been inserted by the Twenty-fifth Amendment. If Article 31C
is valid, they say, hereafter Parliament and State Legislatures and not the Constitution, will
determine how much freedom is good for the citizens.

13. These cases raise grave issues. But however grave the issues may be, the answer must depend on
the interpretation of the words in Article 368, read in accordance with the principles of
interpretation which are applied to the interpretation of a Constitution given by the people to
themselves.

14. I must interpret Article 368 in the setting of our Constitution, in the background of our history
and in the light of our aspirations and hopes, and other relevant circumstances. No other
Constitution in the world is like ours. No other Constitution combines under its wings such diverse
peoples, numbering now more than 550 millions, with different languages and religions and in
different stages of economic development, into one nation, and no other nation is faced with such
vast socio-economic problems.

15. I need hardly observe that I am not interpreting an ordinary statute, but a Constitution which
apart from setting up a machinery for government, has a noble and grand vision. The vision was put
in words in the Preamble and carried out in part by conferring fundamental rights on the people.
The vision was directed to be further carried out by the application of directive principles.

PART II-Interpretation of Golak Nath's Case.

16. Before proceeding with the main task, it is necessary to ask : what was decided in I.C. Golak Nath
v. State of Punjab [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 ? In order to properly appreciate that case, it is necessary first
to have a look at Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar [1952] S.C.R. 89
and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 S.C.R. 933.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/ 3