Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. 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."

24. 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.

25. The constitutional validity of the Constitution (39 th 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 39th 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 observations in Keshavananda Bharthi's case (supra), held that the power C/SCA/6267/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/09/2021 of amendment under Article 368 does not include the 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:

"This Constitution has a basic structure comprising the three organs of the Republic: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary ........... Neither of these three separate organs of the Republic can take over the function assigned to the other. This is the basic structure or scheme of the system of Government of the Republic laid down in this Constitution whose identity cannot, according to the majority view in Keshavananda's case, be changed even by resorting to Art. 368."

26. Y.V.Chandrachud, J., held:

"Basic structure', by the majority Judgment is not a part of the fundamental rights nor indeed a provision of the Constitution. The theory of basic structure is woven out of the conspectus of the Constitution and the amending power is subject to it because it is a Constituent power."

27. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which added Clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 placing Constitutional amendments beyond the purview of the judicial review, was challenged in the Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1789. The Constitution Bench declared the new clauses (4) and (5) Articles 368 as unconstitutional holding: