ARTICLE- 368, KESAVANANA BHARATI V.

STATE OF KERALA

A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the course

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND PRINCIPLE OF
LEGISLATION, 7th SEMESTER during the academic year 2019-2020

SUBMITTED BY:
KHUSHBU KUMARI
ROLL NO- 1533
B.A. LL.B.

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Dr. S. Ali Mohammad
FACULTY OF ISPL

AUGUST, 2019
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYAYA NAGAR,
MEETHAPUR, PATNA-800001
 INTRODUCTION

No Written Constitution is complete without amending provisions, in some respects, the

amending provision is the most important part of the Constitution.
“An unamendable Constitution is the worst tyranny of time or rather the very tyranny of
time”

In fact the essence of a written Constitution lies in its mode of amendment. The amendment
process is an opportunity to express democratic conceptions of basic constitutional values
without derogating from the fundamental constitutional principles. Amendment of the
Constitution is made with a view to overcome the difficulties which may encounter in future
in the working of the Constitution.

The meaning of the word amendment was for the first time sought to be explained in case
of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajastan.The court held “the amendment provision of Constitution
may include the deletion of any one or more of its provisions and substitution in their place of
new provisions.”

The meaning given in above case was restricted in Golaknath case the majority of judges in
this case held that “In amendment only major changes or improvements can be made and not
includes total repeal of the provisions already existing in this Constitution.”

But Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela provided the best explanation as to the scope
and definition of the word ‘Amendment’. It proposed that “A broad definition of the word
‘Amendment’ will include any alteration or change. The word ‘amendment’ when used in
connection with the Constitution may refer to the addition of a provision on a new and
independent subject, complete in itself and wholly disconnected from other provisions, or to
some particular article or clause, and is then used to indicate an addition to, the striking out,
or some change in that particular article or clause.”
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. To study about the method of interpretation of constitutional provisions.

2. To study about interpretation of Art.368 which was given by Supreme Court in

Kesavananda Bhararti v. State of Kerala.

HYPOTHESES

The researcher considers the following hypotheses:

1. After this historic case Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that some of provisions of
the constitutions forms the basic structure of which cannot be amended. It was a
landmark judgment which overhauled the scenario of fundamental right and
consolidated liberty, equality, and fraternity in its truest form.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has used the doctrinal and in doctrinal method with empirical research.
Doctrinal method includes the books, articles, journals etc. whereas the in doctrinal one
includes the online sources like online journals, databases etc.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION

1. Introduction
2. Amending Power of the Parliament
3. Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala
4. The Judicial Journey of “ Basic Structure‟
5. Conclusion
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. M.P Jain, “Indian Constitutional law” Lexis Nexis ( Eight edition, 2018)
2. Dr. Durga Das Basu, “ Introduction to the Constitution India” Lexis Nexis