SCHOOL OF LAW

THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY

Study centre

Dehradun

Project report of

Principles of Legislations and Interpretation of Statutes

Topic

Amendment of Indian Constitution - Article 368

SUBMITTED BY

Ayush Kumar Singh

17FLICDDN01034

BBA.LLB (Hons.) 3rd Year

SUBMITTED TO

Ms. Ayushi Mittal

 CONTENT

List of cases …………………………………………………………………………….….03

Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………….…04

Introduction to Constitution………………………………………………………………...05

The Supreme Court and the Amendment Power…………………………………………...07

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………......12

Summary of the effect of the various judgments……………………………………………14

Evaluation of the judgments…………………………………………………………………14

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………....16

Page | 2
 LIST OF CASES

1. Sankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933

3. Golak Nath v.State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SCC 2299

6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

7. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261

Page | 3
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION

1. S SECTION

2. & AND

3. AIR ALL INDIA REPOTER

4. vs. VERSUS

5. Hon’BLE HONORABLE

6. Vol. VOLUME

7. PG PAGE

8. TOTO TOATLITY

9. Ors. OTHERS

10. Cl. CLAUSE

11. Art. ARTICLE

12. IPC INDIAN PENEL CODE

13. CrPC. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

14. Govt. GOVERNMENT

15. HC HIGH COURT

16. SC SUPREME COURT

17. i.e THAT IS

18. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

19. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

20. Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY

21. W.r.t WITH RESPECT TO

22. UOI UNION OF INDIA

Page | 4
Introduction to Constitution

The Constitution of India lays down the framework on which Indian polity is run. The Constitution
declares India to be a sovereign socialist democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality,
and liberty. It was passed by the Constituent Assembly of India on November 26, 1949, and came
into effect on January 26, 1950. India celebrates January 26 each year as Republic Day. It is the
longest written constitution of any independent nation in the world, containing 395 articles and 12
schedules, as well as numerous amendments, for a total of 117,369 words in the English language
version. Besides the English version, there is an official Hindi translation. The Constitution lays
down the basic structure of government under which the people chose themselves to be governed. It
establishes the main organs of government - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The
Constitution not only defines the powers of each organ, but also demarcates their responsibilities. It
regulates the relationship between the different organs and between the government and the people.

The Constitution is superior to all other laws of the country. Every law enacted by the government
has to be in conformity with the Constitution. The Constitution lays down the national goals of India
- Democracy, Socialism and National Integration. It also spells out the Fundamental Rights, Directive
Principles and Duties of citizens. The Draftsmen of the Indian Constitution took inspiration from
Constitutions all over the world and incorporated their attributes into the Indian Constitution. For
example Part III on Fundamental Rights is partly derived from the American Constitution and Part
1V on Directive Principles of State Policy from the Irish Constitution. A Constitution should be a
dynamic document. It should be able to adapt itself to the changing needs of the society. Sometimes
under the impact of new powerful social and economic forces, the pattern of government will require
major changes. Keeping this factor in mind the Draftsmen of the Indian Constitution incorporated
Article 368 in the Constitution which dealt with the procedure of amendment. Due to Article 368 the
Indian Constitution can neither be called rigid nor flexible but in fact it is partly rigid and partly
flexible. Articles of the Indian Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in the Parliament
(Second Schedule, Article 100(3), 105, 11, 124, 135, 81, 137), or by special majority that is majority
of the total membership of each house and by majority of not less than two thirds of the members of
each house present and voting , or by Ratification by the State Legislatures after special majority
(Article 73, 162, Chapter 1V of Part V, Chapter V of Part V1, Seventh Schedule, representation of
the State in Parliament and provisions dealing with amendment of the Constitution).

Constituent power is the area in the history of Indian Constitutional Law which has lead to most
serious disagreements between Parliament and Judiciary, the conflict involving Parliamentary

Page | 5
Supremacy on one hand and on the other Judicial review of the Scope and extent of the power and
the manner in which such power is to be exercised. Constituent power is termed as a power which is
exercised by a representative body authorized by a Constitution to amend the Constitution. This
amending power is one of the most desirable powers in a Constitution, if a Constitution as a
fundamental document is to continue. John Burgess is of the opinion that the first and most important
part is the organization of the State for the accomplishments of future changes in the Constitution,
which is the amendment clause.

Classification of amendment procedures can if classified in two heads as rigid and flexible. Rigid.
procedures means difficult to amend the constitution like that of U.S., Australia, Canada and
Switzerland and flexible procedure means in which procedure to amend is easy, and can be done
even by passing a normal legislation like that of United Kingdom. But in Indian constitution though
the procedure is classified as Rigid but it has practically proved to a flexible one.

In India Article 368 provides the power of amendment. The procedure to be followed in India in not
strictly rigid or flexible, and further there is a difference in procedure when it affects the federal
character of the Union. An amendment can be proposed in either of the Houses. In India all
constitutional amendments can be generally effectuated by a Special Majority, i.e., it must be passed
by both the houses, with more than 50% of total number of members along with two thirds of
members present and voting.

The clause 2 of Art 368 also specifies certain situations in which apart from above mentioned
special majority ratification by more than half of the number of States is required, they are:

 Election of the President.

 Extent of executive power of the Union and State.
 Provisions dealing with the Supreme Court.
 Provisions dealing with High Courts in the States and Union territories
 Distribution of legislative power between Centre and State
 Representation of States in Parliament.
 Seventh schedule
 Art. 368 itself.

In either of the two procedures after the bill is passed it is reserved for Presidential assent, which in
turn is bound to give it. In India the procedure has proved to be far more flexible, till now as much as
96 amendments have been made. Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly while defending the
procedure contented that the procedure for amendment in the Indian Constitution is a simple
Page | 6
procedures, as compared to US, Australia or Canada, and deliberately models of convention and
referenda are avoided. He further said that it may be possible that in future this power may be used
for partisan motives and hence some rigidity is required in the procedure.

Necessity of Amending Provisions in the Constitution: Provisions for 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 time is not static; it goes on changing .The social, economic and political conditions
of the people go on changing so the constitutional law of the country must also change in order
toward it to the changing needs, changing life of the people. If no provisions were made for
amendment of the constitution, the people would have recourse to extra constitutional method like
revolution to change the constitution. The framers of the Indian constitution were anxious to have a
document which could grow with a growing nation, adapt itself to the changing circumstances of a
growing people. The Constitution has to be changed at every interval of time. Nobody can say that
this is the finality. A constitution which is static is a constitution which ultimately becomes a big
hurdle in the path of the progress of the nation.

Restriction on parliament power of Amending Provisions in the Constitution and Judicial Review:
The framers of the Indian constitution were also aware of that fact that if the constitution was so
flexible it would be like playing cards of the ruling party so they adopted a middle course. It is
neither too rigid to admit necessary amendments, nor flexible for undesirable changes. India got
independence after a long struggle in which numerous patriots sacrificed their life. They knew the
real value of the freedom so they framed a constitution in which every person is equal and there is no
discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, sex and religion. They wanted to build a welfare nation
where the social, economical, political rights of the general person recognize. The one of the
wonderful aspect of our constitution is Fundamental rights and for the protection of these rights they
provided us an independent judiciary. According to constitution, parliament and state legislature in
India have the power to make the laws within their respective jurisdiction.

This power is not absolute in nature. The constitution vests in judiciary, the power to adjudicate upon
the constitutional validity of all the laws. If a laws made by parliament or state legislature violates
any provision of the constitution, the Supreme Court has power to declare such a law invalid or ultra
virus. So the process of judicial scrutiny of legislative acts is called Judicial Review. Article 368 of
the Constitution gives the impression that Parliament's amending powers are absolute and encompass
all parts of the document. But the Supreme Court has acted as a brake to the legislative enthusiasm of
Parliament ever since independence. With the intention of preserving the original ideals envisioned
by the constitution-makers. To Abraham Lincoln, democracy meant a Government of the people, by

Page | 7
 the people and for the people. So in democratic nation whenever any law passed by parliament
violates any provision of constitution or takes away any fundamental rights of the person, the
Supreme Court has right and power to strike down that law or act. According to me this jurisdiction
of Supreme Court is essential for protection of basic features of the constitution.

The Supreme Court and the Amendment Power:

 Shankari Prasad v.Union of India1: In this case first time the question whether fundamental rights
can be amended under Article 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court. In that case the
Validity of the First Constitutional Amendment which added Article 31-A and 31-B of the
Constitution was challenged. It was contended that though it may be open to Parliament to amend the
provisions in respect of the fundamental rights, the amendments, would have to be tested in the light
of the provisions contained in Art.13(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, with a bench of five
judges, unanimously rejected the contention that in so far as the First Amendment took away or
abridged the fundamental rights conferred by Part III it should not be upheld in the light of the
provisions of article 13(2). Shastri J: delivering the judgment of the court said that although "law"
must ordinarily include constitutional law, there is a clear demarcation between ordinary law, which
is made in the exercise of legislative power, and constitutional law, which is made in the exercise of
constituent power. Dicey defines constitutional law as including "all rules which directly or indirectly
affect the distribution or the exercise of the sovereign power in the State." The terms of Art. 368 arc
perfectly general and empower Parliament t" amend the Constitution, without any exception
whatever.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment, agrarian legislative measures adopted by the States were
effectively challenged in the High Courts and two further amendments were passed to save the
validity of those measures. The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, amended article 31-A,
while the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, amended article 31-A, again and added
44 Acts to the Ninth schedule.

Sajjan Singh v.State of Rajasthan2: The validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was challenged in
this case. The main contention before the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court was that the
Seventeenth Amendment limited the jurisdiction of the High Courts and, therefore, required
ratification by one-half of the States under the provisions of article 368. The court unanimously
1
AIR 1951SC 458
2
AIR 1965 SC 845

Page | 8
disposed of this contention, but members of the court chose to deal with a second submission, that the
decision in the Shankari Prasad case should be reconsidered. The Chief Justice (Gajendragadkar C.J.)
in delivering the view of the majority (Gajendragadkar C.J., Wanchoo and Raghubar Dayal JJ.)
expressed their full concurrence with the decision in the earlier case. The words "amendment of this
constitution" in article 368 plainly and unambiguously meant amendment of all the provisions of the
Constitution; it would, therefore, be unreasonable to hold that the word "law" in article 13(2) took in
Constitution Amendment Acts passed under article 368.

They went on to point out that, even if the powers to amend the fundamental rights were not included
in article 368, Parliament could by a suitable amendment assume those powers. The Chief Justice
also dealt in his judgment with the wording of article 3lB. That article, he considered, left it open to
the Legislatures concerned to repeal or amend Acts that had been included in the Ninth Schedule. But
the inevitable consequence would be that an amended provision would not receive the protection of
article 31B and that its validity could be examined on its merits.

The judgments in Sajjan Singh's case were to provide the outlines of what was to become, and still is,
a national debate on the method by which the Indian Constitution can be amended. As an Indian
commentator has pointed out the doubts expressed by Hidayatullah and Mudholkar JJ. in Sajjan
Singh's case about the correctness of the decision in Shankari Prasad's case were to be confirmed by
the majority in the next case to be considered (Golak Nath's case). Golak Nath's case was itself to be
overruled by a majority in the Keshvananda bharti's case, this time in favour of Mudholkar J's view
that certain features of the Constitution were basic and unalterable. The minority judges in
Keshvananda's case were to return to the view of the court in Shankari Prasad's case and the majority
in Sajjan Singh's case.

Golakhnath v. State of Punjab3: The doubts of the minority judges in Sajjan Singh's case as to the
correctness of the decision in Shankari Prasad's case were raised before a bench of eleven judges of
the Supreme Court in this case, in which the validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the
Constitution in so far as they affected fundamental rights was again challenged. The Fourth
Amendment was also challenged. This time a majority of six judges to five decided that Parliament
had no power to amend any of the provisions of Part III, so as to take away or abridge the
fundamental rights enshrined therein. The majority were, however, faced with the problem that, if the
First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments were at a late stage to be invalidated, the impact on social
and economic affairs would be chaotic. On the other hand, the court considered that it had a duty to

3
(1967) 2 SCR 762
Page | 9
correct errors in the law. It, therefore, adopted a doctrine of prospective overruling4 under which the
three constitutional amendments concerned would continue to be valid, and the decision to the effect
that Parliament had no power to amend the provisions of Part III would operate for the future only.

Given this "policy and doctrinaire decision to favour Fundamental Rights", the majority
judgment of Subha Rao C.J. proceeded to accept the following propositions:

(i) Article 368 with its marginal note "Procedure for amendment of the Constitution" dealt only with
the procedure for amendment. Amendment was a legislative process and the power of Parliament to
make amendments was contained in article 248 and Entry 97 in List I of the Seventh Schedule (the
Union List) which confer residuary legislative powers on the Union Parliament.

(ii) An amendment to the Constitution, whether under the procedural require-ments of article 368 or
under any other article, is made as part of the normal legislative process. It is, therefore, a "law" for
the purpose of article 13(2).

The judgment of three of the dissentients.( Wanchoo, Bhargava and Mitter JJ.) in the Golak Nath"
case was delivered by Wanchoo J. The learned observed that Art.368 carried the power to amend all
parts of the constitution including the fundamental rights in part III of the constitution. They
reaffirmed the correctness of the decisions in cases of Shankri Prasad and Sajjan singh.

To get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Golaknath's case the Constitution 24th
Amendment Act was passed in 1971. The Twenty-fourth Amendment made changes to articles
13 and 368:

(i) A new clause was added to article 13: "(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of
this Constitution made under article 368."

(ii) Amendments were made to article 368:

a) The article was given a new marginal heading: "Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
and procedure therefore."

b) A new clause was added as clause (I): "(I) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any
provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.

4
Prospective overruling is a device invented by the Supreme Court to avoid reopening of settled issues and to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings. In prospective overruling the court does not grant relief to the petitioner even after holding
in his favour.

Page | 10
c) Another clause was added as clause (3): "(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment
under this article."

Another amendment to the old article 368 (now article 368(2)) made it obligatory rather than
discretionary for the President to give his assent to any Bill duly passed under the article.

Basic Structure:

The Supreme Court recognized BASIC STRUCTURE concept for the first time in the historic
Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Ever since the Supreme Court has been the interpreter of the
Constitution and the arbiter of all amendments made by parliament. In this case validity of the 25th
Amendment act was challenged along with the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-ninth Amendments. The
court by majority overruled the Golak Nath case which denied parliament the power to amend
fundamental rights of the citizens. The majority held that article 368 even before the 24th
Amendment contained the power as well as the procedure of amendment. The Supreme Court
declared that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution and parliament could not use its amending powers under Article 368 to 'damage',
'weaken', 'destroy', 'abrogate', 'change' or 'alter' the 'basic structure' or framework of the constitution.
This decision is not just a landmark in the evolution of constitutional law, but a turning point in
constitutional history.

Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala5: It is a landmark of the Supreme Court of India, and is the
basis in Indian law for the exercise by the Indian judiciary of the power to judicially review, and
strike down, amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict
with or seek to alter the Constitution's basic structure. The judgment also defined the extent to which
the Indian Parliament could restrict the right to property, 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.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan6: Basic Structure concept reaffirmed in this case. The
Supreme Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Cl(4) of article 329-A,which
was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power
of the parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution. The amendment was made to
the jurisdiction of all courts including SC, over disputes relating to elections involving the Prime
Minister of India.

5
AIR 1973SC 1461
6
AIR 1975 SCC 2299
Page | 11
Basic Features of the Constitution according to the Election case verdict Again, each judge expressed
views about what amounts to the basic structure of the Constitution: Justice Y.V. Chandrachud listed
four basic features which he considered unamendable:

a) Sovereign democratic republic status.

b) Equality of status and opportunity of an individual.

c) Secularism and freedom of conscience and religion.

d) 'Government of laws and not of men' i.e. the rule of law.

2nd Amendment: After the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshvanand Bharti and Indira Nehru
Gandhi case the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed which added two new
clauses, namely, clause (4) and (5) to Art.368 of the Constitution. It declared that there shall be no
limitation whatever on the constituent power of parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or
repeal of the provisions of the Constitution under this Article. This Amendment would put an end to
any controversy as to which is supreme, Parliament or the Supreme Court. Clause (4) asserted the
supremacy of the parliament. It was urged that Parliament represents the will of the people and if
people desire to amend the Constitution through Parliament there can be no limitation whatever on
the exercise of this power. This amendment removed the limitation imposed on the amending power
of the Parliament by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Keshvanand Bharti's case. It was said that the
theory of 'basic structure' as invented by the Supreme Court is vague and will create difficulties. The
amendment was intended to rectify this situation.

Minerva Mill v. Union of India7: In this case the validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged
on the ground that they are destructive of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The Supreme Court
by majority by 4 to 1 majority struck down clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 inserted by 42nd
Amendment, on the ground that these clauses destroyed the essential feature of the basic structure of
the constitution. It was ruled by court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the
Constitution.

The historical Judgement laid down that:

The amendment made to Art.31C by the 42nd Amendment is invalid because it damaged the
essential features of the Constitution. Clauses (4) and (5) are invalid on the ground that they violate
two basic features of the Constitution viz. limited nature of the power to amend and judicial review.
The courts cannot be deprived of their power of judicial review. The procedure prescribed by Cl.(2)
7
(1980) 3 SCC 625
Page | 12
is mandatory. If the amendment is passed without complying with the procedure it would be invalid.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is Supreme not the
Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending power so as to damage or destroy the
Constitution to which it owes its existence and also derives its power.

L.Chandra kumar v. Union of India8: Article 323-A and 323-B, both dealing with tribunals, were
inserted by the 42nd Amendment. Clause 2(d) of Art.323-A and Clause 3(d) of 323-B provided for
exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 and 227 and the Supreme Court under
Art.32.The Supreme Court in this case held these provisions as unconstitutional because they deny
judicial review which is basic feature of the Constitution. It held that the power of judicial review
vested in the High court under Art.226 and right to move the Supreme Court under Art.32 is an
integral and essential feature of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

Effect of Keshvanand bharti case.

Keshvanand over ruled Golaknath but did not reestablish parliamentary supremacy. It stated that
fundamental rights may be amended by the parliament, but not all of them. Those fundamental rights
which constitute the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be abridged. Golaknath gave primacy
to fundamental rights. Keshvanand recognizes that some other provisions in the Constitution may be
equally important. If they form the basic structure they are unamendable. Under Art.368 the
parliament cannot rewrite the entire Constitution and bring in a new one.

By invalidating part of Art.31-C keshvanand prevented the state legislature from exercising power to
virtually amend the constitution. Art.31-C lays down that if a state legislature makes a law which
contains a declaration that it is to giving effect to the policy contained in Art.39(b)and(c) then no
court may scrutinize it. Thus a state legislature could make review proof law. Keshvanand denied
them such power. Power of judicial review shall remain with the court, legislative declaration cannot
destroy it.

Keshvavand is an example of judicial creativity of the first order. It protected the nation from the
attacks on the Constitution by a passing 2/3 majority which may be motivated by narrow party or
personal interests. The basic feature cannot be mauled.

8
AIR 1997 SC1125
Page | 13
Summary of the effect of the various judgments:

The effect of the various decisions of the Supreme Court may be thus summarized:

 Parliament has limited powers to amend the constitution.

 Parliament cannot damage or destroy the basic features of the Constitution.
 The Procedure prescribed for the amendment is mandatory. Non compliance with it will result
in invalidity of the amendment.
 Clauses (4) and (5) inserted in Art. 368 by the 42nd Amendment Act are invalid because they
take away the right of judicial review.
 Parliament cannot increase its amending power by amending Art. 368.

Evaluation of the judgments:

Golaknath and later Kesavanand were subjected to a lot of criticism. It was said that there are no
express limitations to the amending power. The courts are enlarging their powers by inventing
implied limitations. It was contended that the doctrine of basic features leads to uncertainty. Nobody
can foretell with certainty what the basic features are. The Parliament does not know where it
stands—what power it possesses. Without uncontrolled power the Parliament cannot bring about
socio-economic reforms.

The answer to these comments is—the Supreme Court has adopted a purposive approach. Most of the
amendments that were invalidated were no part of any socio-economic reforms. Some of them had
nothing to do with public welfare. The 39th and 42nd Amendments were made to ensure power to
one individual and one party. The standard of political morality is low. Within political parties
democracy hardly breathes and power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a coterie.
Majority of the people are apathetic and easily led by attractive slogans. All these situations
compelled the Supreme Court to rule in favour of limited powers and protect the freedom of the
people. Uncertainty is part of life. Most of the legal concepts e.g. negligence, reasonableness, public
interest and natural justice are not susceptible to exact definitions. The 39th and 42nd Amendments
have clearly shown that unlimited amending power can be and effective instrument to usher
dictatorship. The doctrine of implied powers is a safety device to prevent such occurrence.

The amendment process was incorporated in the Constitution by the Draftsmen of the Constitution to
help India adapt itself to the changing circumstances. Society is never stagnant. It is ever- changing.
Therefore the amending procedure was made partly flexible so as to make it easy for the Legislature.
Page | 14
But the Parliament started thinking that it has unlimited amending power. It assumed itself to be the
supreme law when the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Parliament started making
amendments which were destroying the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. But after the
landmark decisions of Keshavnand Bharati and Minerva Mills the Court by its power of judicial
review has curtailed the amending power of the Parliament. The amendments made by the Parliament
can no more affect the basic structure of the Constitution. But, looking at the ease with amendments
can take place depending on the whims and fancies of the ruling government and the POLITICS IN
THE POLITICS OF INDIA we cannot say how long the rights of the citizens are safe and
unobstructed.

Now we can say, there is no hard and fast rule for basic feature of the Constitution. Different judge
keep different views regarding to theory of basis structure. But at one point they have similar view
that parliament has no power to destroy, alter, or emasculate the 'basic structure' or framework of the
constitution. If the historical background, the preamble, the entire scheme of the constitution and the
relevant provisions thereof including article 368 are kept in mind then there can be no difficulty, in
determining what are the basic elements of the basic structure of the constitution. These words apply
with greater force to doctrine of the basic structure, because, the federal and democratic structure of
the constitution, the separation of powers, the secular character of our state are very much more
definite than either negligence or natural justice. So for the protection of welfare state, fundamental
rights, Unity and integrity of the nation, Sovereign democratic republic and for Liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship, interpretation of judiciary is mandatory. We can say none is
above constitution even parliament and judiciary.

Page | 15
Bibliography:

Websites:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._The_State_of_Kerala.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India.

3. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/am_co.htm.

4. http://legalservicesindia.com/articles/pol.htm.

5. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals/indanaandcollection=usjournals.

Books:

1. Basu, D.D., Commentary on the Constitution of India, 2005

2. Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India, 2006

3. Pandey, J.N., Constitutional law of India, 2006

4. Jain,M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 2006

5. Sharma Brij kishore, Introduction to the Constitution of India

6. Shukla V.N., Constitution of India, 2006

7. Shiva Rao.B., The Framing of India's Constitution, 2006

Page | 16