Keshvananda Bharti V. State Of Kerela Case Study

949 Words 4 Pages
Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerela case asserted the Basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The concerned question was if the Parliament had unrestricted power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The judgment given held that the Indian judiciary had the power to review and strike down the amendments made by the Parliament if they were against or altered the basic structure doctrine. In this judgment, separation of powers was included in the basic structure of the constitution, though it is not followed in the most rigid manner.
The doctrine was also upheld in the case of Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain . In this case, the Prime Minster elections were in question. The constituent body had declared the elections valid. It
…show more content…
Domain refers to the area owned and controlled under a particular authority. Here, when we talk about the domain of the courts, we shall discuss about the scope of the matters that could be entertained by the courts and the areas under the control of the Judiciary in India. Let us trace back the jurisdiction of the courts from the British period.
2.2 Historical Background of Courts in India and Evolution of their
…show more content…
The High Courts in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were the most important. Appeals could lie from these three courts to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in England. The first important inference to a Supreme Court was made in the Nehru Report. It recommended that this hierarchy of the courts shall be kept, but there should be an apex court, i.e., Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction in all federal matters where interpretation of constitution was concerned. Various committees studied the question of Federal court and Supreme Court. Further, the Joint Committee rejected the suggestions and proposed the establishment of only a Federal Court. It recommended that the original jurisdiction of Federal Court should extend to disputes involving the interpretation of the Constitution, disputes among the units and between them and the federal government, and disputes concerning the interpretation of laws enacted by federal legislature. But the appeals on constitutional questions lied to the Privy Council. The federal court was actually established by The Government of India Act, 1935 and its original jurisdiction was defined by the Section 204. The Sapru Committee 1945 reviewed the functioning of the Federal Court and noted that the Federal court had exercised its appellate jurisdiction in a number of cases, but it exercised its original jurisdiction in only one case. The Committee recommended that the

Related Documents