Talk:Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Category problems
Under U.S Supreme Court?? (Categories) ?? Venkatesh Nandakumar (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed LegalEagle (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203063934/http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2901/stories/20120127290107100.htm to http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2901/stories/20120127290107100.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.nujslawreview.org/articles2008vol1no3/satya_prateek.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf to http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004035407/http://www.lexsite.com/services/network/scba/history.shtml to http://www.lexsite.com/services/network/scba/history.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013055/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf to http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220120644/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090950.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1809/18090950.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The article is very hard to understand, and really just communicates that the ruling was good. There is no nuance. Lots of work to do to put it in context. Mottezen (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Mottezen, Can you please elaborate?  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 06:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also WP:NPOV suggests that the article has not been written from a 'neutral point of view'. Reading this article that does not seem to jump out. Your note seems to be about writing style, which is different from WP:NPOV. I will remove the WP:NPOV tag. Please add an updated rationale here if the tag needs to be reintroduced, and we can do that. Ktin (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Converting InfoBox from SCICase to Courtcase
Since the discussion of 20 March 2021, there has been a consensus on merging [Template:Infobox SCI Case] with [Template:Infobox court case]. I'm new but I'm going to try to convert each existing SCI Case to the Courtcase infobox without altering appearance first to try to further the merge. Any suggestions or advice? Semanticz0 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic "Significance" section
The theory that 368 (1) voids simple majority amendment is the editor's and the editor's alone and would thus have no place on Wikipedia even if it were true. Incidentally, it isn't, as Kasavanda makes clear:

"…the Constitution can be amended not only under Article 368 but also under Article 4, Article 169, Paragraph 7 of Schedule V and Paragraph 21 of Schedule VI. Amendments under these provisions can be effected by Parliament by a simple majority vote… (665)"

506e is irrelevant to the question of the amendment powers granted by Article 4 et al., for several reasons: 1) It says "368 does not enable", not 368 forbids. Simple majority amendment is enabled by Article 4 et al. and thus has no need of enabling by 368. 368 (1) forbids nothing. It is a simple "may" clause, in contrast to 368 (2), which includes a "may…only" clause that forbids amendment (for which purposes certain amendments shall not be deemed so) otherwise than by two-thirds majorities.	2) What it says 368 does not enable is a certain delegation "from Parliament in its constituent capacity". Thus, 368 does not enable Parliament to vote by two-thirds majorities to enable itself in its ordinary legislative capacity to do what it is not already enabled to do in its ordinary legislative capacity. That clearly has no bearing on the amendment powers delegated to Parliament in its ordinary legislative capacity not by Parliament but by the Constituent Assembly via the Constitution. 3) It does not define "amending" (indeed, the Court reiterates throughout its opinion that "amend" means different things in different contexts). If 368 (1) said, "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, all amendments in the broadest sense shall be deemed amendments for the purposes of this article", that would be one thing; Article 4 et al.'s instructions on how to deem the amendments they enable would conflict with 368 (1)'s, and 368 (1)'s would prevail. But 368 (1) includes no such instructions, which should not be surprising when one considers that the intent was clearly not to void simple majority amendment, but rather to affirm that any provision can be amended in any way. As A.K. Roy observes, quoting 368 (1), the constituent power is the power to amend "any provision". A power so broad in scope is, accordingly, reserved to Parliament in its constituent capacity with its supermajority requirements. The power granted by Article 4 et al., to amend certain provisions, is narrower in scope and, accordingly, may be exercised by simple majority. Pennythugginit (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)