90-693: Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the Golaknath case , was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution . The family of Golak Nath held over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar , Punjab . In the phase of the 1953 Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act,
180-621: A constitution bench ) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise. The largest-ever bench at the Supreme Court of India has been constituted in 1973 in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala . A bench of 13 judges was set up to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution, which eventually gave rise to
270-476: A chief justice and seven judges; leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In its formative years, the Supreme Court met from 10 to 12 in the morning and then from 2 to 4 in the afternoon for 28 days per month. The emblem of the Supreme Court represents the Lion capital of Ashoka at Sarnath , with a topmost wheel featuring 32 spokes. The Supreme Court of India was constituted as per Chapter IV of Part V of
360-429: A judicial committee would be formed to frame charges against the judge, to conduct the fair trial and to submit its report to parliament. When the judicial committee report finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, further removal proceedings would be taken up by Parliament if the judge is not resigning himself. The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment per applicable laws or for contempt of
450-413: A permanent secretariat to help the collegium sift through material on potential candidates, infusing more transparency into the selection process, grievance redressal and any other suggestion not in these four categories, like transfer of judges. This resulted in the court asking the government and the collegium to finalize the memorandum of procedure incorporating the above. In 2009, a challenge arose in
540-652: A spacious colonnaded verandah. The court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two new wings – the East Wing and the West Wing ;– were added to the complex. 1994 saw the last extension. On 20 February 1978, a black bronze sculpture of 210 cm (6 ft 11 in) height was installed in the lawn of the Supreme Court. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist Chintamoni Kar . The statue, as per its sculptor Kar, reproduces ‘‘ Mother India sheltering young Republic represented by
630-490: A thorough consultation occurred within the collegium to form this opinion, the content or material considered in shaping the opinion was not subject to scrutiny in a court of law. Judges of the Supreme Court in India currently conclude their service upon reaching the age of 65. Nevertheless, there have been proposals put forth by Supreme Court judges advocating for the implementation of a predetermined tenure for judges, including
720-492: A triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an Indo-British style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar , the first Indian to head the Central Public Works Department . The design of scales of justice was to conform to this triangular site and according to Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the conception of justice for Indians. It has a 27.6 m (90 ft 7 in) high dome and
810-403: A welfare State, human freedoms have to suffer a total destruction. Applying these tests, the learned Judges invalidated Article 31C even in its un-amended form. Held that the word 'amendment' was used in the sense of permitting a change, in contradistinction to destruction, which the repeal or abrogation brings about. Therefore, the width of the power of amendment could not be enlarged by amending
900-460: Is a limitation on the power of amendment by necessary implication which was apparent from a reading of the preamble and therefore, according to the learned Chief Justice, the expression 'amendment of this Constitution,' in Article 368 , means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the preamble, made in order to carry out the basic objectives of
990-448: Is currently assisted by 10 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars, etc. Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 entitle only those advocates who are registered with the Supreme Court, called advocates-on-record to appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as 'senior advocates' by
SECTION 10
#17327907241621080-424: Is drawn on a larger canvas as compared to that of Golaknath . It also overruled Golaknath and thus, all the previous amendments which were held valid are now open to be reviewed. They can also be sustained on the ground that they do not affect the basic structure of the constitution or on the fact that they are reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights in public interest. Both the cases, if seen closely, bear
1170-482: Is nondescript, but the mother’s resemblance to Mrs. Indira Gandhi is discernible even to the ordinary eye not trained for appreciating the nuances of sculpture’’. As the statue was put up in the year 1978, the post-emergency period of India, they contended that it is symbolic of perversity and is based on the theme of the mother-and-son cult built up during the Emergency (India) period. Different interpretations of
1260-548: Is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka with 24 spokes. The inscription in Sanskrit , " यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः " ( IAST : Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ ,) means "whence justice (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity . On 1 September 2024, the Supreme Court unveiled a flag for the Court's use, combining elements of
1350-467: Is submitted here that the doctrine of prospective overruling in anyway does not supersede the already existing doctrine but simply tries to enrich the existing and rather complex practice with regard to the effects of new judicial decisions, by the adoption of an alternative discretionary device to be employed in appropriate cases. So, the basic characteristics of the above doctrine are the flexibility of content and fitfulness of occurrence. Parliament passed
1440-681: Is the official journal of reportable Supreme Court decisions. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi. In addition, there are many other reputed private journals that report Supreme Court decisions. Some of these other important journals are: SCR (The Supreme Court Reports), SCC (Supreme Court Cases), AIR (All India Reporter), SCALE, etc. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970), also known as
1530-453: Is thus regarded as the official date of establishment. The Supreme Court initially had its seat at the Chamber of Princes in the parliament building where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first Chief Justice of India was H. J. Kania. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises. Originally, the Constitution of India envisaged a supreme court with
1620-548: The Code of Civil Procedure . Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of State in Maharashtra government , Swaroop Singh Naik, to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. Article 145 of
1710-584: The High Courts of various states and tribunals. As an advisory court, it hears matters which are referred by the President of India . Under judicial review, the court invalidates both normal laws as well as constitutional amendments as per the Basic structure doctrine that it developed in the 1960s and 1970s. It is required to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and settles legal disputes among
1800-650: The Kesavananda Bharati judgement , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution . The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. The court in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution. Justice Hans Raj Khanna asserted through
1890-542: The Republic of India . It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review . The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original , appellate and advisory jurisdictions . As the apex constitutional court, it takes up appeals primarily against verdicts of
SECTION 20
#17327907241621980-406: The 24th Amendment in 1971 to abrogate the Supreme Court judgement. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of
2070-467: The Basic Structure doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values. The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath v. State of Punjab , which held that constitutional amendments through Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review, but only if they could affect the 'basic structure of the Constitution'. At the same time,
2160-566: The Basic Structure doctrine. A citizen of India not exceeding 65 years age per Article 124 of the Constitution who has been: is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the Supreme Court. I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries. In practice, judges of
2250-500: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is designated to preside over all special leave petitions (SLPs) and cases concerning public interest, social justice, elections, arbitration, criminal matters, and more. Other members of the collegium or senior judges are tasked with hearing cases related to labour disputes, taxation, compensation, consumer protection, maritime law, mortgage, personal law, family law, land acquisition, service, company matters, and other relevant areas. Supreme Court Reports
2340-479: The Chief Justice of India. Article 125 of the Indian constitution leaves it to the Indian parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the parliament cannot alter any of these privileges rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her appointment. A judge of the Supreme Court draws a salary of ₹ 250,000 (US$ 3,000) per month—equivalent to
2430-406: The Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. Article 124(4) of the constitution, President of India can remove a judge on
2520-594: The Constitution of India. The fourth Chapter of the Indian Constitution is " The Union Judiciary". Under this Chapter, the Supreme Court of India is vested with all Jurisdiction. The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country. Presently, the Members of Collegium are: The building is shaped to symbolize scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of
2610-509: The Constitution were said to be void. It was in this case that the then Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao had first invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling. He had taken import from American law where jurists like George F. Canfield, Robert Hill Freeman, John Henry Wigmore and Benjamin N. Cardozo had considered this doctrine to be an effective judicial tool. In the words of Canfield, the said expression means: Taking cue from such formulation, Justice Subba Rao used this doctrine to preserve
2700-435: The Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court, by thin majority of 6:5, held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Constitution. The majority did not believe there was any difference between ordinary legislative power of
2790-408: The Constitution. Accordingly, every provision of the Constitution was open to amendment provided the basic foundation or structure of the Constitution was not damaged or destroyed. Held that the preamble to the Constitution contains the clue to the fundamentals of the Constitution. According to the learned Judges, Parts III and IV of the Constitution which respectively embody the fundamental rights and
I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs. - Misplaced Pages Continue
2880-577: The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the first provision of Article 31-C, which implied that amendments seeking to implement the Directive Principles , which do not affect the 'Basic Structure,' shall not be subjected to judicial review. The doctrine forms the basis of power of the Indian judiciary to review and override amendments to the Constitution of India enacted by the Indian parliament . The 13-judge Constitution bench of
2970-528: The Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights. However, the Court affirmed another proposition also asserted in the Golaknath case, by ruling that the expression "amendment" of this Constitution in article 368 means any addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of the Preamble and the Constitution to carry out
3060-577: The Directive Principles. It ensures that-"the state /judiciary shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which social , economic and political justice is animated/informed in all institutions of life." B. R. Ambedkar clarified as given below in the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 38 (1) highlighting its inevitable implementation. ... The word 'strive' which occurs in
3150-594: The Draft Constitution, in judgement, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfilment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word 'strive'. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that
3240-499: The Fundamental Rights. In 1973, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that the Parliament under the Indian Constitution is not supreme, in that it cannot change the basic structure of the constitution. It also declared that in certain circumstances, the amendment of fundamental rights would affect the basic structure and therefore, would be void. Thus, one can see that this case
3330-433: The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to create its own rules, subject to presidential approval, to govern the practice and procedures of the court. These rules have been revised and published three times, first in 1950, then in 1966, and most recently in 2013. From 5 February 2018 onwards, the Supreme Court adopted a fresh roster system for assigning cases to judges. According to this new arrangement,
3420-458: The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to reevaluate its own decisions. According to this article, the Supreme Court can review any judgment or order it has previously pronounced. This power is subject to any laws created by Parliament or rules established under Article 145. The Supreme Court holds the ability to invalidate parliamentary and governmental decisions if they violate fundamental features. Additionally, it can overturn
3510-475: The Judge, although it was permissible for the Parliament to effect changes in the exercise of its amending power so as to meet the requirements of changing conditions, it was not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern. Therefore, the words 'amendment of the Constitution' in spite of the width of their sweep and in spite of their amplitude, could not have the effect of empowering
3600-432: The Parliament had full power to amend the Constitution, however, since it is only a 'power to amend,' the basic structure or framework of the structure should remain intact. While as per the aforesaid views of the six learned Judges, certain "essential elements" (which included fundamental rights) of the judgment cannot be amended as there are certain implied restrictions on the powers of the parliament of India. According to
3690-467: The Parliament to destroy or abrogate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. This gave birth to the basic structure doctrine , which has been considered as the cornerstone of the Constitutional law in India. The government of Indira Gandhi did not take kindly to this restriction on its powers by the court. On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray , who was among the dissenters,
I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs. - Misplaced Pages Continue
3780-566: The Privy Council as the highest court of appeal since 28 January 1950, two days after India was declared a republic. With expansive authority to initiate actions and wield appellate jurisdiction over all courts and the ability to invalidate amendments to the constitution, the Supreme Court of India is widely acknowledged as one of the most powerful supreme courts in the world. In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act 1861
3870-403: The Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a verdict divided 7–6, the court held that while the Parliament has 'wide' powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution. When this case was decided,
3960-451: The Supreme Court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely nine justices— S. M. Sikri , S. Chandra Roy , Kuldip Singh , Santosh Hegde , R. F. Nariman , U. U. Lalit , L. Nageswara Rao , Indu Malhotra and P. S. Narasimha —have been appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the bar (i.e., who were practising advocates). The Supreme Court saw its first woman judge when Justice M. Fathima Beevi
4050-419: The Supreme Court or any of the high courts can appear for clients along with an advocate-on-record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an advocate-on-record. Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As
4140-414: The Supreme Court regarding the recommendation for the appointment of a high court judge made by the collegium of that specific court. The court asserted that the eligibility to become a judge was a factual matter, open to questioning by any individual. On the contrary, the determination of who should become a judge was deemed a matter of opinion and was beyond questioning. The court emphasized that, as long as
4230-518: The Supreme Court, Arun Jaitley, also criticized the appointment of judges in government posts after their retirement. Jaitley famously said:"There are two kinds of judges - those who know the law and those who know the Law Minister. We are the only country in the world where judges appoint judges. Even though there is a retirement age, judges are not willing to retire. Pre-retirement judgements are influenced by post-retirement jobs." Article 137 of
4320-433: The amending power itself. The learned Judge held that the essential elements of the basic structure of the Constitution are reflected in its preamble and that some of the important features of the Constitution are justice, freedom of expression and equality of status and opportunity. The word 'amendment' could not possibly embrace the right to abrogate the pivotal features and the fundamental freedoms and therefore, that part of
4410-636: The basic features of the Constitution. In the 1980 case Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment. The 39th Amendment was passed in 1975, during The Emergency and placed the election of the President , the Vice President , the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond
4500-550: The basic structure could not be damaged or destroyed. According to the learned Judge, the provisions of Article 31d, as they, conferring power on Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws for giving effect to the principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39, altogether abrogated the right given by Article 14 and were for that reason unconstitutional. In conclusion, the learned Judge held that though
4590-546: The building, consisting of the Chief Justice's court, the largest of the courtrooms, with two court halls on either side. The Right Wing of the structure has the Bar, consisting of rooms, the offices of the Attorney General of India and other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all, there are 15 courtrooms in the various wings of the building. These two wings act as
SECTION 50
#17327907241624680-482: The central government and various state governments. Its decisions are binding on other Indian courts as well as the union and state governments. As per the Article 142 of the Constitution, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to pass any order deemed necessary in the interest of complete justice which becomes binding on the President to enforce. The Supreme Court replaced the Judicial Committee of
4770-478: The circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go. As per the constitution, as held by the court in the Three Judges Cases – (1982, 1993, 1998), a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court by the president on the recommendation of the collegium — a closed group of the Chief Justice of India,
4860-417: The circumstantial was subject to change. According to the learned Judges, the broad contours of the basic elements and the fundamental features of the Constitution are delineated in the preamble and the Parliament has no power to abolish or emasculate those basic elements of fundamental features. The building of a welfare State is the ultimate goal of every Government but that does not mean that in order to build
4950-410: The constitution and rule of law are the features of the basic structure of the Constitution . The Supreme Court and high courts are empowered to frame suo moto cases without receiving formal petitions/complaints on any suspected injustice, including actions/acts indulging in contempt of court and contempt of the Constitution by the executive, legislators, citizens, etc. It is acknowledged as one of
5040-530: The constitution by breaching the oath under disrespecting constitution A person who has retired as a judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India. However, Supreme Court and high court judges are appointed to various posts in tribunals and commissions, after their retirement. Lawyer Ashish Goel in a recent article criticized this stating that post-retirement benefits for judges hampers judicial independence. Former Law Minister and Senior Advocate of
5130-470: The constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, legality of which had been challenged. He drew protective cover offered by the doctrine over the impugned amendments while manifestly holding that the impugned amendments abridged the scope of fundamental rights. Justifying his stand, he held that: The judges who delivered the minority judgement in the Golaknath case dissented with
5220-414: The directive principles have to be balanced and harmonised. This balance & harmony between two integral parts of the Constitution forms a basic element of the Constitution which cannot be altered. The word 'amendment' occurring in Article 368 must therefore be construed in such a manner as to preserve the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not so as to result in damaging or destroying
5310-410: The first Sikh Chief Justice of India. Justice Indu Malhotra is the first and only woman judge to be selected directly from the bar. The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court judges in various ways. Per Article 50 of directive principles of state policy , the state shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive. Independence of the judiciary, the supremacy of
5400-468: The four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee. This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure being followed, for the appointments. Judges used to be appointed by the president on the advice of the union cabinet . After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to
5490-409: The grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity when parliament approves with a majority of the total membership of each house in favour of impeachment and not less than two thirds of the members of each house present. For initiating impeachment proceedings against a judge, at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha or 100 members of Lok Sabha shall issue the notice per Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 . Then
SECTION 60
#17327907241625580-475: The high courts. The first CJI of India was H. J. Kania . The Supreme Court of India came into existence on 28 January 1950. It replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council , which were then at the apex of the Indian court system. The first proceedings and inauguration, however, took place on 28 January 1950 at 9:45 am, when the judges took their seats; which
5670-630: The impeachment process of the President and Judges, as decided by Parliament, based on constitutional validity or fundamental features. Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of
5760-632: The law (Article 14). They also sought to have the Seventeenth Amendment – which had placed the Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule – declared ultra vires . The issues involved were whether Amendment is a "law" under the meaning of Article 13(3)( a), and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. The judgement reversed Supreme Court 's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of
5850-466: The most autonomous judiciaries in the entirety of Southeast Asia. The main purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide constitutional issues. It is the duty of the judiciary to frame suo moto cases or to probe cases/petitions at the earliest against the executive or legislature when laws are implemented which violate the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution as stated in Article 38 (1) of
5940-411: The most-senior civil servant of the Indian government , Cabinet Secretary of India —while the chief justice earns ₹ 280,000 (US$ 3,400) per month. Per Article 124 and third Schedule of the constitution, the chief justice (or a judge) of the Supreme Court of India is required to make and subscribe in the presence of the president an oath or affirmation that they will bear true faith and allegiance to
6030-427: The objectives in the Preamble and the Directive Principles. Applied to fundamental rights, it would be that while fundamental rights cannot be abrogated, reasonable abridgement of fundamental rights could be affected in the public interest. The true position is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same. The nine signatories to
6120-557: The parliament and the inherent constituent power of parliament to amend the Constitution. The majority did not agree with the view that Article 368 of the Constitution contained "power and procedure" to amend, but instead believed that the text of Article 368 only explained the procedure to amend the constitution, the power being derived from entry 97 of the List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. Since according to Article 13(2),
6210-504: The parliament could not make any law that abridges the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution, a constitutional amendment, also being an ordinary law within the meaning of Article 13, could not be in violation of the fundamental rights chapter contained in the Constitution of India. Therefore, all constitutional amendments thus far which were in contravention or which had made an exception to fundamental rights chapter of
6300-410: The power of amendment was wide, it did not comprehend the power to totally abrogate or emasculate or damage any of the fundamental rights or the essential elements of the basic structure of the Constitution or to destroy the identity of the Constitution. Subject to these limitations, Parliament had the right to amend any and every provision of the Constitution. H R Khanna has given in his judgment that
6390-428: The president, who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the collegium of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism. In 2015, Parliament passed a law to replace the collegium with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This
6480-409: The right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. The case had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973, and its judgement consists of 700 pages. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab , and considered the validity of the article 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The case
6570-481: The same practical effects. What Golaknath said was that the Parliament cannot amend so as to take away the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III, whereas in Keshavananda , it was held that it cannot amend so as to affect the basic structure. Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court of India ( ISO : Bhārata kā Sarvōcca Nyāyālaya ) is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of
6660-531: The seal and the Court's architecture. The flag is a deep blue colour and depicts the Ashoka Chakra set above the rotunda of the Court. The flag also features the Constitution of India. The flag was inaugurated by President of India Droupadi Murmu on September 1, 2024, commemorating the 75th anniversary of supreme court. The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General, who
6750-482: The staircase of the Supreme Court building in the front lawn. The statue, when it was being put in the Court premises, led to protests by advocates of the Court in 1978 and a demand was made for its removal. A memorandum was submitted to the then law minister Shanti Bhushan , which stated that ‘‘the statue is supposedly a symbol and inspiration for the highest institution of justice, the Supreme Court….The child
6840-598: The state government held that the brothers could keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants and the rest was declared 'surplus'. This was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any profession (Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)) and to equality before and equal protection of
6930-459: The statement were Four judges did not sign the judgment CJI S M Sikri held that the fundamental importance of the freedom of the individual has to be preserved for all times to come and that it could not be amended out of existence. According to the Chief Justice, fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgment of those rights could be effected in public interest. There
7020-409: The statue came from advocates, one said, ‘it’s like Indira mothering the judges and telling them you practice justice like I tell you to’, while the other said, ‘symbolizing justice is terribly conservative as justice is constantly changing’. Later on, though the advocates submitted an apology memorandum after they got to know that the maquette was made in the year 1969. The design of the Court's seal
7110-466: The structure and identity of the Constitution. There was thus an implied limitation on the amending power which prevented the Parliament from abolishing or changing the identity of the Constitution or any of its Basic Structure. Held that the Constitution of India which is essentially a social rather than a political document, is founded on a social philosophy and as such has two main features basic and circumstantial. The basic constituent remained constant,
7200-401: The symbol of a child upholding the law of the country shown in the form of an open book, with the symbol of the balance representing law and justice’’. The official account states that it represents a ‘‘dispensation of equal justice to all’’. The black bronze sculpture has been placed at the center of the park on the lawn of the Court just behind the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, which is in front of
7290-412: The two limbs of the balance and end with two semi-circular hooks that represent the pans of the balance, and the centres of the two semi-circular pans connect to a centrally placed statue of ‘Mother and Child’ in the garden. The foundation stone of the Supreme Court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by Rajendra Prasad , the first President of India . The main block of the building has been built on
7380-435: The underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was unprecedented. The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights , in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted. The case
7470-421: The view of the invocation of the doctrine of prospective overruling. They seemed to rest their argument on the traditional Blackstonian theory, where they said that courts declare law and a declaration being the law of the land takes effect from the date the law comes into force. They further said that it would be loathsome to change the above principle and supersede it by the doctrine of prospective overruling. It
7560-493: The work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges (including the Chief Justice) from the original 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, to 34 in 2019. As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a division bench ) —coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as
7650-667: Was a culmination of a series of cases relating to limitations to the power to amend the Constitution. In February 1970 Swami Kesavananda Bharati , senior plaintiff and head of the Hindu monastery Edneer Matha in Edneer , Kasaragod District , Kerala , challenged the Kerala government 's attempts, under two land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property. A noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala , convinced Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning
7740-558: Was enacted to create high courts for various provinces and abolish Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the s adar adalats in presidency towns in their respective regions. These new high courts had the distinction of being the highest courts for all cases till the creation of the Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935 . The Federal Court had the jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeals against judgement of
7830-418: Was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges. The bench gave eleven separate judgments, which agreed in some points and differed on others. Nanabhoy Palkhivala , assisted by Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee , presented the case against the government in both cases. Upholding the validity of clause 1 of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment,
7920-439: Was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history. The 42nd Amendment , enacted in 1976, is considered to be the immediate and most direct fall out of the judgment. Apart from it, the judgement cleared the deck for complete legislative authority to amend any part of the Constitution except when the amendments are not in consonance with
8010-463: Was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges' Case , as the new system would undermine the independence of the judiciary. Putting the old system of the collegium back, the court invited suggestions, even from the general public, on how to improve the collegium system, broadly along the lines of – setting up an eligibility criteria for appointments,
8100-413: Was sworn into office in 1989. In 1968, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah became the first Muslim Chief Justice of India. In 2007, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge as well as the Chief Justice of India from the dalit community. In 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority community became the Chief Justice of India. In 2017, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar became
#161838