Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Part 2 of 50 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Ram Jupelli
    1. The Berubari Union case examined the Parliament's power to transfer territory to another country under Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment was required for such a transfer, not just a regular law. 2. In Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court initially ruled that the Parliament did not have the power to restrict fundamental rights, including the right to property. However, subsequent amendments and cases modified this position. 3. The Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine, indicating that some core features of the Constitution, including judicial review, cannot be amended even under Article 368. This opened the door to interpreting the basic structure of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Part 2 of 50 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Ram Jupelli
    27 views12 pages
    1. The Berubari Union case examined the Parliament's power to transfer territory to another country under Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment was required for such a transfer, not just a regular law. 2. In Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court initially ruled that the Parliament did not have the power to restrict fundamental rights, including the right to property. However, subsequent amendments and cases modified this position. 3. The Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine, indicating that some core features of the Constitution, including judicial review, cannot be amended even under Article 368. This opened the door to interpreting the basic structure of the

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The Berubari Union case examined the Parliament's power to transfer territory to another country under Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment was required for such a transfer, not just a regular law. 2. In Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court initially ruled that the Parliament did not have the power to restrict fundamental rights, including the right to property. However, subsequent amendments and cases modified this position. 3. The Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine, indicating that some core features of the Constitution, including judicial review, cannot be amended even under Article 368. This opened the door to interpreting the basic structure of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    27 views12 pages

    Part 2 of 50 Cases

    Uploaded by

    Ram Jupelli
    1. The Berubari Union case examined the Parliament's power to transfer territory to another country under Article 3 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment was required for such a transfer, not just a regular law. 2. In Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court initially ruled that the Parliament did not have the power to restrict fundamental rights, including the right to property. However, subsequent amendments and cases modified this position. 3. The Kesavananda Bharati case established the basic structure doctrine, indicating that some core features of the Constitution, including judicial review, cannot be amended even under Article 368. This opened the door to interpreting the basic structure of the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 12

    Part-2

    50 Important Supreme
    Court Judgements
    Berubari Union case (1960)
    Golaknath Vs State of Punjab (1967)
    Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India – (1970)
    Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Case (1973)
    Maneka Gandhi vs UoI case (1978)
    5. Berubari Union Case
    (1960)
    Theme : Article 3 related
    The Case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubari to
    Pakistan.
    The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make
    laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement (1958) , which agreed
    to transfer the areas between the countries.

    Hence, the 9th constitutional Amendment Act was passed to enforce the
    agreement.- Article 368 (Special Majority), Article 3 (Simple Majority)
    100th CAA- Transfer of Enclaves between India and Bangladesh.
    5. Berubari Union Case
    (1960)

    Not under Article 3


    It requires the
    Transfer of Land to
    another country Constitutional
    Amendment
    under Article 368
    6. Golaknath Vs State of
    Punjab (1967)
    Theme: Right to Property - is it a Fundamental Right?
    Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament doesn’t have the power to restrict any of the Fundamental
    Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
    Hence, State of Punjab couldn’t take away Golaknath or any other citizen’s land as Right to Property
    was deemed to be fundamental. [Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953]

    Beginning with its ruling in GOLAKNATH, the Court developed


    jurisprudence around what was known as the basic structure doctrine.
    According to this doctrine, the Court was in charge of preventing the
    erosion of those enduring values that constitute the essence of
    constitutionalism.
    6. Golaknath Vs State of
    Punjab (1967)
    Shankari Prasad vs UoI Case, 1951
    Power of Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1965
    Amending the
    Constitution Does not include

    Under A.368

    FR are amendable
    Power of
    Article 13(2) includes
    Amending the Ordinary Law and
    Fundamental the Constitutional
    Rights Law
    7. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper
    vs Union Of India – (1970)
    Theme : Ordinance making power [Bank Nationalization Case]
    The ordinance making power of the President can be questioned if his satisfaction can be
    questioned on the grounds of mala-fide.
    DC Wadhwa case 1987- Court held that re promulgation of ordinances with the same
    text, without giving any chance to house to pass it, would amount to a violation of the
    Constitution and can be struck down.

    Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017 –


    SC ruled that ordinances are subject to judicial review, and do not
    automatically create enduring effects.
    7. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper
    vs Union Of India – (1970)

    Ordinance Making Power Power can’t be


    questioned.
    Article 123
    Intension of Promulgation
    Article 213 can be questioned.
    8. Kesavananda Bharati vs
    State of Kerala Case (1973)
    Theme : Basic structure of the Constitution
    Declared that Article 31C of the constitution which was inserted by 24th Constitutional
    amendment to give unrestricted powers to parliament in enacting a law which is against
    judicial review. 25th CAA- Right to Property is removed from Fundamental Rights.
    SC felt that judicial review is the basic structure of the constitution and is amendable even
    under Article 368. 25th CAA- Unconstitutional. 24th CAA- Partially upheld.

    It opened the floodgates for interpretation of what constitutes


    the basic structure of the constitution which is discussed over
    many cases.
    8. Kesavananda Bharati vs
    State of Kerala Case (1973)

    Judicial review Basic Structure


    Amenability of of the
    FR Constitution

    Shankari Prasad vs UoI Case, 1951 Kesavananda Bharati vs


    State of Kerala Case (1973)
    Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1965
    Golaknath vs State of Punjab 1967
    9. Maneka Gandhi vs UoI
    Case (1978)
    Theme: Expansion of rights under Article 21
    The Court reiterated that the term ‘personal liberty’ is of “the widest amplitude and it covers a variety
    of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man.”
    And some of those rights have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given
    additional protection under Article 19.
    SC held that - ‘Procedure established by law’ is within the meaning of Article 21
    and must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’
    otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21
    would not be satisfied.
    Thus the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in
    India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.
    9. Maneka Gandhi vs UoI
    Case (1978)

    Procedure
    UK Established by
    Law (Japan)
    USA Due Process of Law
    All The Best

    You might also like