Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"468. The impugned amendment does not infringe any Constitutional provision. It cannot be found to be violative of fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. It is not disputed that Parliament has legislative competence to enact the amending Act. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned legislation cannot be struck down as unconstitutional."

From the authorities noted above, it can be garnered that, challenge to the vires of a statute can be successfully sustained, if it is substantiated that, the impugned provision is, beyond the legislative competence of the legislature making the impugned provisions, or the impugned provision violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India or is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. When legislative competence is questioned, the Court is required to find out in which entry of which list the statute falls. In doing so, the Court is required to give a liberal interpretation of the entry in the concerned list. It might so happen that, the statute may fall within two or more entries of a particular list. The Court is required to find out whether the list was within the competence of the legislature enacting the statute or not. The doctrine of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India applies to a Constitutional Amendment. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has contended that, the impugned amendment is beyond the legislative competence and is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not alleged that, fundamental rights of the petitioner stands violated.

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. (supra) has inter alia held that, a Constitutional amendment cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution applies to a consideration of a Constitutional Amendment. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association (supra) and Kuldip Nayar & Ors. (supra) are pronouncements subsequent to Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. (supra). The twin tests for a challenge to a constitutional validity of an Act were followed and applied therein to arrive at the finding as whether the law which was the subject matter of challenge, failed any of the twin tests or not.