NLSIU

Academic Year 2021-22

5 year LL.B CORE COURSE: Constitutional Law I
Session 9: (Fri, Apr 01): Article 13 (3 0f 3)
Reading Guide and Discussion Questions:
In this final session on Article 13, we will continue with the discussion of the Sankari
Prasad case, before moving onto discussing Sajjan Singh, Golakh Nath and the
Kesavananda cases. The focus throughout will be on the question: do constitutional
amendments amount to ‘law’ within Article 13? Please read the judgment in Sajjan
Singh and the extracts from Golakh Nath and Kesavananda on this issue. For those who
want some additional background on these cases, please see the recommended reading
that I have added to LMS.
I will lead the discussion on the first two cases. The KB judgments will be dealt with by
Tarun, Aparajita, Shristy and Saif (in that order). Each of the presenters will get about
10 minutes overall (5 mt presentation followed by 5 minutes of Q and A). Please
practice your initial speech and time yourself for this purpose.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. As you read through each of the several judgments, focus on the reasoning
provided by the individual judge on the central question we are focusing on:
whether Article 13 covers constitutional amendments within its ambit. Try and
identify the substantive reasons advanced by each judge for reaching his
conclusion.
2. Next, focus on the sources cited by the judge to justify his reasoning. Recall
Fallon’s typology and think of what argument is being deployed by the judge in
his justification.
3. Think about how and why the judges are departing from the short, unanimous
conclusion reached by Justice Sastri in Shankari Prasad to the array of arguments
that are on display by the time we come to KB nearly two decades later. Can we
explain this change purely through legal lenses? What other factors may help us
understand this shift?