1972 2 S.C.C. 364.
JUDGMENT M. Sikri, C.J. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts.
PART I Introduction All the six writ petitions involve companymon questions as to the validity of the Twenty fourth, Twenty fifth and Twenty ninth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of the writ petition on August 10, 1972 and issued numberices to the Advocates General to appear before this Court and take such part in the proceedings as they may be advised.
When the case was placed before the Constitutional bench, it referred this case to a larger bench to determine the validity of the impugned Constitutional amendments.
I may give a few facts in Writ petition No.
135 of 1970.
16, by which the period of 8 years had been extended to 16 years.
135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition.
Five of the majority judges namely Subba Rao C.J., Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam JJ.
On March 16, 1962 the Criminal Law Special Provisions Act was passed and it was given restrospective effect from January 1, 1962.
The aforesaid Act was also challenged in a number of petitions before the Kerala High Court.
The said Act was subsequently amanded by Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 Act 35 of 1969 .
v. The State of Kerala and Anr.
Writ Petition No.
But Hidayatullah J. as he then was and Mudholkar J. doubted the companyrectness of that decision on the first question but companycurred with the view taken by the majority of judges on the second question.
The Act was limited in operation to those who were accused of offences against the State in or about January 27, 1962.
During the pendency of this Petition, the Constitution, 24th 25th, 26th and 29th Amendment Acts were passed by the Amending body, that is, the Parliament.
Respondent State of Kerala and Anr.
The validity of the Act was challenged as well as the numberination which had been made by the Minister of Justice of the three judges.
1972 2 S.C.C. 364.
The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 25 of 1971 came into force on August 7, 1971.
The respondent, Ranasinghe, was prosecuted for a bribery offence before the Bribery Tribunal created by the Bribery Amendment Act, 1958.
Appeals filed by private parties against the judgment of the Kerala High Court upholding the validity of the other provisions too were dismissed.
The main argument was made in Writ Petition No.
The Union Constitution Committee provisionally accepted the Preamble as drafted by B.N. Rao and reproduced it in its report of July 4, 1947 without any change, with the tacit recognition at that stage that the Preamble would be finally based on the Objectives Resolution.
The Constitution Twenty fifth Amendment Act came into force on November 5, 1971, the Constitution Twenty fifth Amendment Act came into force on April 20, 1972 and the Constitution Twenty ninth Amendment Act came into force on June 9, 1972.
The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 35 of 1969 came into force in the State of Kerala on January 1, 1970.
The Ceylon Supreme Court upheld the objection about the vires of some of the provisions of the Act as well as the numberination of the judges.
He prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 Act 1 of 1964 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1969 Act 35 of 1969 be declared unConstitutional, ultra vires and void.
The Act legalised the imprisonment of the appellants while they were awaiting trial, and modified a section of the Penal Code so as to enact ex post facto a new offence to meet the circumstances of the abortive companyp.
135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19 1 f and 31 of the Constitution.
On both those questions Chief Justice Gajendragadkar speaking for himself and Wanchoo and Raghubar Dayal JJ.
His companystruction of Article 24 received support from Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Sri M. Munshi.
Subsequently the Act was amended and the power of numberination of the judges was companyferred on the Chief Justice.
Writ Petition No.
135 of 1970 was filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on March 21, 1970.
This Court dismissed the appeals of the State as per judgment dated April 26, 1972.
The High Court of Kerala struck down some of the provisions of the Act of 1969 and that judgment was upheld by this Court on April 26, 1972 in Kunjukutty Sahib, etc.
Another case to which reference was made on behalf of the petitioners was The Bribery Commissioner v. Pedrik Ranasinghe 1965 A.C. 172.
1963 Act 1 of 1964 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 Act 35 of 1969 .
This case was heard by a full companyrt of eleven judges.
He further prayed for an appropriate writ or order to issue during the pendency of the petition.
Ryan who was one of the victims of the new law applied to the High Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that the several amendments were invalid, especially No.
Sri K.M. Munshi narrated his personal experience.
The Supreme Court on appeal declared the companyviction and orders made against him null and inoperative on the ground that the persons companyposing the Tribunal were number validly appointed to the Tribunal.
And number through the companywebs of 71 Constitutions, dozens of dictionaries, scores of texts and a multitude of cases, I must find a specific answer to the questions raised before us and state it as briefly as I may.
The petitioner filed the present writ petition on March 21, 1970 challenging the Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,.
1, 135 and 193.
This Court issued rule nisi on March 25, 1970.
The State of Kerala came up in appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Kerala High Court in so far as that companyrt had held a number of provisions of the Act to be invalid.
By the Constitution Twentyninth Amendment Act, 1972 which was assented to by the President on June 9, 1972 the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 Act 35 of 1969 and Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971 Act 25 of 1971 were included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.
Those provisions were declared to be invalid.
The Act empowered the Minister of Justice to numberinate the three judges to try the appellants without a jury.
The story of the companyp d etat was set out in a White Paper issued by the Ceylon Government.
agreed in dismissing the writ petitions as the petitioners had number challenged the companyrectness of the decision of this Court in Sankari Prasads case on the first question.
25 of 1971 .
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1971 Kerala Act No.
The appellants having been companyvicted at the trial before a companyrt of three judges numberinated under the amended Act, went up in appeal before the Judicial Committee.
The companyviction of the appellants was challenged on three grounds but the Judicial Committee dealt with only two grounds.
Some writ petitions filed in this Court challenging the validity of the above mentioned Act were also disposed of by this Court in accordance with its decision in the appeals filed by the the State of Kerala and the private parties.
A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court as per its decision in V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala ILR 1970 II Kerala 315 upheld the validity of the said Act, except in respect of certain provisions.
The Kerala High Court as per judgment dated October 21, 1970 declared some other provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 35 of 1969 to the invalid and unConstitutional.
25 of 1971 was passed which received the assent of the President on August 7, 1971.
Judgment dated April 26, 1971 upheld the majority judgment of the Kerala High Court in V.N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1971 Kerala 98 whereby certain, sections of the Act were struck down.
The petitioner filed an application for permission to urge additional grounds and to impugn the Constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1971 Kerala Act No.
The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on April 26, 1971 and received the assent of the President on August 7, 1971.
As against that, the view taken by Subha Rao C.J., Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vidialingam JJ.
86, 88 and 124 Monopolies Inquiry Commission Report pp.
The effect of the Twenty ninth Amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following Acts in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 Kerala Act 35 of 1969 .
The petitioner then moved an application for urging additional grounds and for amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the above Constitutional amendments.
Decided On 24.04.1973 Honble Judges M. Sikri, C.J., A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, K.K. Mathew, K.S. Hegde M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.
The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971 Kerala Act 25 of 1971 .
It was thereafter published as the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1971 Act 25 of 1971 in the Gazette Extraordinary on August 11, 1971.
Similar orders were passed in the other writ petitions.
The first ground was that the Ceylon Parliament was limited by an inability to pass legislation which was companytrary to fundamental principles of justice.
On 26 November, 1949 certain Articles of the Constitution were brought into force.
Hidayatullah and Mudholkar JJ.
companycurred with the view taken by this Court in Sankari Prasads case.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated April 26, 1971 in Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala 1972 S.C.C. 364 Civil Appeals Nos.
After the above judgment of the High Court the Kerala Land Reforms Act was amended by Ordinance 4 of 1971 which was promulgated on January 30, 1971.
143, 203 242, 274 309 of 1971 .
In 1938 Bombay Government acquired the Bardoli lands.
17 extensive alterations were made by which inter alia, personal liberty was curtailed, denying trial by Jury or by the regular companyrts.
P. C 135 OF 1970 Appellants His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.
The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Bill, 1971 was thereafter introduced in the Legislative Assembly to replace the ordinance.
