Source: https://www.inmemoryglobal.com/remembrance/2016/02/k-subba-rao/
Timestamp: 2018-10-23 12:19:19
Document Index: 80128266

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 368', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 368', 'Art. 368', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 368', 'sui generis', 'Art. 13']

K. Subba Rao - Inmemory K. Subba Rao - Inmemory <% if ( total_view > 0 ) { %> <%= total_view > 1 ? "total views" : "total view" %>, <% if ( today_view > 0 ) { %> <%= today_view > 1 ? "views today" : "view today" %> no views today	No views yet
K. Subba Rao
Date Of Birth: 15 Jul 1902
Date of Death: 6 May 1976
He was born at Rajahmundry on the banks of Godavari River on 15 July 1902 in a Velama family.His father, a lawyer, died early.Rao graduated from the Government Arts College, Rajamundry and studied law at Madras Law College.He was a good sportsman
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO, C.J., SHAH, SIKRI, SHELAT and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ. was delivered by SUBBA RAO, C.I. According to this Judgment-(i) the power to amend the Constitution is not to be found in Art. 368 but in Arts. 245, 246 and 248 read with Entry 97 of List 1; (ii) the amending power can. not be used to abridge or take away the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution; (iii) a law amending the Constitution is “Law” within the meaning of Art. 13(2) and (iv). the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments though they abridged fundamental rights were valid in the past on the basis of earlier decisions of this Court and continue to be valid for the future. On the application of the doctrine of “prospective over-ruling”, as enunciated in the judgment, the decision will have only prospective operation and Parliament will have no power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights from the date of the judgment.
The Judgment of WANCHOO, BHARGAVA and MITTER, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J. According to this Judgment (i) the 780
power of amending the Constitution resides in Art. 368 and not in Arts. 245, 246 and 248, read with EntrY 97 of List 1; (ii) there, are no restrictions on the power if the procedure in Art. 368 is followed and all the Parts of the Constitution including Part III, can be amended, (iii) an amendment of the Constitution is not “‘law” under Art. 13(2); and (iv) the doctrine of “prospective overruling” cannot be applied in India.
HIDAYATULLAH, J. delivered a separate judgment agreeing with SUBBA RAo, CJ. on the following two points: (i) that the power to amend the Constitution cannot be used to abridge or take away fundamental rights; and (ii) that a law amending the Constitution is “law” under Art. 13 (2). He agrees With WANCHOO, J. that the power to amend does not reside in Arts. 245 and 248 read wish Entry 97 of List 1.
Art. 368, according to him, is sui generis and procedural and the procedure when correctly followed, results in an amendment. He does not rely on the doctrine of “prospective overruling”. As regards the First, Fourth and Seventh Amendments, these having long enured and been acquiesced in, he does not treat the question of their validity as being before him. As regards the Seventeenth Amendment he finds sufficient support for it in the Constitution as amended by the First, Fourth and Seventh Amendments and holds that the new definition of “estate”, introduced by the Amendment, though it is “law” under Art. 13 (2) and is an inroad into fundamental rights, is beyond the reach of the courts because it falls within the word “law” in Arts. 31 (1), (2), 2A and 31A(1). He, however, declares section 3 of the Seventeenth Amendment Act ultra vires the amending process as an illegitimate exercise of the amending power. BACHAWAT and RAMASWAMI, JJ. delivered separate judgments concurring with WANCHOO, J.