Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. Hans Raj Khanna J., observed:

"Our Constitution postulates Rule of law in the sense of supremacy of the Constitution and the Jaws as opposed to arbitrariness. The vesting of power of exclusion of judicial review in a legislature, including State Legislature, contemplated by Article 31-C, in. my opinion, strikes at the basic structure of the Constitution."

34. By reading these individual Judgments in Keshavanand Bharathi's case (supra), the consensus of opinion that has emerged is that the judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution and that the Parliament has no power to amend the basic structure or feature of the Constitution.

35. The constitutional validity of the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, fell for the consideration of the Supreme Court in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2299. Majority of the Judges declared clause (4) of Article 329-A as introduced by the Constitution 39 th Amendment Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. Khanna, J., dealing with the contention of the learned Solicitor General, that according to the judgment in Keshavananda Bharathi's case (supra) no fundamental right is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, by quoting the obervations in Keshavananda Bharthi's case (supra), held that the power of amendment under Article 368 does not include power to abrogate the Constitution nor does it include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. As regards the 'basic feature' of the Constitution, K.K.Mathew, J., observed:

11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that in spite of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in view of the bar contained in clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution. It was argued that the aggrieved person will have to avail himself the remedy provided in Rule 7 and cannot approach the High Court in the first instance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. We do not find any merit in this contention. We are of the view that a voter in a particular panchayat cannot be rendered remediless if he is aggrieved by the election of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225, a thirteen Judge Bench of this Court held that Article 368 of the Constitution does not enable the Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered by any constitutional amendment and it was held in unambiguous terms that one of the basic features is the existence of constitutional system in judicial review. This view was followed by a Constitution Bench in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 625. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261, a seven Judge Bench of this Court has held that jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplementary role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It has been held as under:

"We, therefore, hold that the power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or excluded." In I.R. Coelho (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, a Bench of nine Judges has again held that power of judicial review is the part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The power to amend cannot be equated with the power to frame the Constitution."