Today we will have a thread on the 24th Amendment which gave the Parliament power to amend all parts of the Constitution including Part III relating to fundamental rights .
The Bill sought to amend article 368 as article 368 provides for amendment of the Constitution as well as procedure therefore.
The Bill also sought to amend article 13 of the Constitution to make it inapplicable to any amendment of the Constitution under article 368.
Article 13 and 368 are shown here . ImageImage
Key provisions were
Amendment of article 13.-In article 13 of the Constitution, after clause (3), the following clause was to be inserted, "(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.".
Amendment of article 368
"Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article."

Both can be seen in above screenshots .
The Bill was a reaction to Golak Nath case, 1967. The Golak Nath ruling led to increased parliamentary authority to amend the Constitution. Through the Amendment, Parliament sought to restore to itself undisputed authority to amend the Constitution .
Prior to the Golak Nath Case, the Supreme Court maintained that Fundamental Rights were also amendable. The case ruled that the Fundamental Rights were transcendental in nature and the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court via the Kesavananda Bharati case upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment & stated that the Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights but at the same time laid down the doctrine of the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’.
Next 2 threads in this series will be on the Kesavananda Bharati case and the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’.
Today we will have a thread on one of the most famous cases fought in the Supreme Court .
This is the kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr
popularly known as the Kesavananda Bharati case .
Judgement can be found here .
indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
This case arose in the early 70s when the leader of a Hindu mutt in Kerala HH Sri Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala government’s attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.
He also challenged three Constitutional amendments – the 24th, 26th and 29th amendments – introduced by the Indira Gandhi government as he apprehended that he would not succeed in light of those amendments.
The Amendments which were challenged can be seen here Image
The question sought to be answered was whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution as per Article 368 is unlimited, or whether there are ‘implied limitations’, in the exercise of such a power.
To put it simply, can the Parliament amend every part of the Constitution as per the procedure provided, or are certain parts of the Constitution, that supposedly form its core, more sacred than the rest of the provisions and hence cannot be altered under any circumstances?
The judgment delivered on April 24, 1973 by 13 judges delivered 11 different judgments in what is said to be a 7:6 majority.
Chief Justice SM Sikri held that Parliament can amend every Article in the Constitution, but this power of amendment is not absolute in as much as it does not enable Parliament to abrogate or take away fundamental rights
or to completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution so as to destroy its identity. These fundamental features of the Constitution are what he called its “Basic Structure " .
2 other Judges mentioned that the Parliament cannot emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution. What these basic features are, is unclear.
6 other judges explicitly held that there are no inherent or implied limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution.
In the absence of any certainty as to what the “basic structure” consists of and only vague parameters to deduce the same, it is left to the wisdom of the SC judges to decide upon it on a case to case basis.
The aim of the judiciary behind propounding this doctrine was understandably to save democracy from the hands of a tyrannical few and pre-empt a dictatorial onslaught on fundamental rights
Next thread in this series will be on the Basic structure doctrine.
The content in this thread and the next have been sourced from the writings of @AankhiGM
Today we will read a thread about the Basic structure doctrine
There is definitely no intention expressed to make any part of the Constitution unamendable, to the extent that the topic was not even debated.
The fact that the First Constitutional amendment, which made important changes to fundamental rights, was passed without the power to amend such rights being questioned, is proof that the intention was not to make Part III unamendable
A plain reading of the Debates will show that the Assembly has made no distinction between essential and non-essential features of the Constitution. There is no special significance given to some provisions of the Constitution as opposed to others.
If at all an elevated status must deemed to have been given to some features of the Constitution, the same must be deduced from Article 368.
This is Article 368 Image
So, if the Constituent Assembly debates did not mention the need for any Basic Structure, from where did this term surface? The doctrine was ironically born in the jurisprudence of a neighboring country known for its undemocratic ideology more than anything else.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan Alvin Cornelius first coined the phrase in the case of Fazulal Quader Chawdry v. Mohd. Abdul Haque [1963 PLD 486(SC)].
The Basic Structure doctrine has led to the supremacy of the judiciary . The Court has repeatedly ballooned the contours of the Basic Structure using the certificate of authority given to it by Kesavananda Bharati, imposed upon the people of India its own morality and ideology
That the preamble was allowed to be changed during the Emergency shows that the Court excuses from the purview of the doctrine what seems morally appealing to it .
A common explanation advanced is that this was permitted because these two words did not change the nature of the Constitution at all, but only explicitly expressed, what it already stood for.
Dr. Ambedkar specifically rejected Prof. KT Shah’s suggestion to add the words ‘’socialist’’ and ‘’secular’’ to the Constitution. He famously said that the Constitution is Image
As far as the term “secular” is concerned, not only did he reject any attempt to add it to the Constitution, but as the book A History of State and Religion in India mentions,
Dr. Ambedkar in fact reminded members of the Lok Sabha in 1951, that continuous references in Parliament and the media to India being a secular state, did not reflect what the Constitution was intended to mean
The Basic Structure doctrine has put the judiciary in the exact position of unlimited power that it sought to prevent the Parliament from occupying.
Plz unroll @threadreaderapp

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Harbard Cow

Harbard Cow Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @CodeNameProteus

27 Mar
Thanks to @Biorahul and @LogicalHindu_ I am writing this thread from the book Memories of a Lacerated Heart (1971): A War Memoir (From East Pakistan to Bangladesh) . This book gives us an insight into the mind of Pakistani army officer who witnessed the events of 1971 firsthand
"We had some shovels in our jeep and with passion and vigor I began attacking the idols with the Subaydar Sahib. As we were breaking the idols I felt deeply satisfied"
"I was experiencing a spiritual calmness simply by demolishing the gods of those people who were the real instigators of the current situation in my country"
Read 14 tweets
26 Mar
Today will do a thread on the 93rd amendment and how it made Hindus second class citizens in their own country
We will start in the year 2002 when the 11-judge Supreme court bench delivered its verdict in the TMA Pai Foundation case.
The most important part of the judgement was this

"Private education institutes established by minorities and non-minorities were held to be on equal footing. Hindus could enjoy the exact same rights under Art 19-1(g) that the minorities did under Art 29/30."
Read 32 tweets
25 Mar
Today we will read a thread on governance during the first 3 years of India gaining Independence .
Far from being a colonial era law , sedition is an outcome of the first amendment of the Constitution, and the Nehru government’s desire to clamp down on critics, unencumbered by constitutional obligations .It was a truly ‘deliberate and strategic assault on the constitution
2 Years back the PM accused former PM Rajiv Gandhi of taking a vacation on INS Viraat. It would be appear that Nehru started the tradition by complaining that his peaceful holiday at sea onboard the INS Delhi had been disturbed when Dr John Matthai resigned from the cabinet.
Read 11 tweets
24 Feb
Today we will continue this topic and look at it in some more detail .
Here we see the government of the day expressing surprise at Chinese incursions in Indian territory 5 years after it happened and expressing regret that the Chinese didn’t take prior permission from the Indians before the infiltration
I am reminded of this famous meme. Thankfully we no longer behave like this with either Paxtan or China
Read 6 tweets
23 Feb
Today we learn about the largest volcanic eruption in the past 28 million years.
The explosion of the Mount Toba supervolcano, located on the modern island of Sumatra, some 74,000 years ago, deposited an ash layer approximately 6 inches thick over the entire Indian subcontinent
Estimated 1,700 cubic-miles of rock erupted , forming a crater lake Toba Caldera and its lake (Danau Toba) visible even from space. ImageImage
In 1998, anthropologist Stanley Ambrose made the connection between the reduced genetic variability found in modern humans and the Toba eruption . However, recent discoveries suggest otherwise.
Read 7 tweets
22 Feb
Thread on what all one can learn from reading the judgements of the Supreme Court .
We learn that Charles Fourier had said that
The extension of women's rights is the basic principle of all social progress.
We also learn that Madame de Stael said that
“I am glad that I am not a man, for then I should have to marry a woman.”
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!