advertisement
Happenstance was how the eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala got to argue some of India’s landmark Constitutional cases, such as the Golak Nath, Keshavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills cases, Justice Rohinton Nariman said at the 16th Nani Palkhivala Memorial Lecture in Mumbai.
He recalled that when the Golak Nath case—a landmark case in which the apex court ruled that Fundamental Rights couldn’t be curtailed—was being argued, Palkhivala was in Geneva appearing for the Union of India and could come only for a day.
What Palkhivala argued that day was something like the basic structure doctrine that was laid down—there are implied limitations to the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, he said.
The landmark Keshavananda Bharati case, too, came to Palkhivala by chance, Justice Nariman said.
Palkhivala argued for almost 32 out of 66 days that the hearings went on for, he said. "What was at stake now was no longer the Golak Nath case. All the 13 judges told Palkhivala—forget Golak Nath; please argue on what the word amendment means," Justice Nariman recounted. The focus, Justice Nariman said, shifted to an implied limitation or basic structure argument.
In the Keshavananda Bharati case, the 13-judge bench was supposed to answer if the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, even to the extent of taking away all Fundamental Rights.
Watch Justice Nariman’s Full Speech Here
(This article was first published on BloombergQuint.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined