76.5% know about number schedules in our constitutio

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in the Golaknath case that Parliament could not restrict any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two brothers named Henry and William Golaknath owned around "500 acres of farmland" in Jalandhar, Punjab. The Golaknath brothers were informed that they could only own 30 acres of property under the recently passed Punjab security and land tenure legislation, and that some of the remaining land would be distributed to tenants and acquired by the government as excess.

The Golaknath family opposes the actions of the local government, and in 1965, the case reached the Supreme Court. The supreme court had the largest bench in history at the time of this case. The petitioners won the verdict by a 6:5 margin, indicating a majority vote in their favor. The majority of those who supported this choice believed that the government should be denied any rights or authority that would make it possible for them to change the Constitution.

The majority of those who spoke agreed that the Constitution's fundamental rights are a very important and vital component. Without them, the Constitution would be like a "body without a soul. "It is believed that a person's individuality can only grow with the protection of their fundamental rights. These are the rights that give a man the freedom to choose how he wants to live his life.

The fundamental rights that we are guaranteed by our constitution include the rights of minorities and other groups that are disadvantaged. The Constitution of India states that Parliament and state legislatures have the authority to make laws in their respective areas. However, this authority is not absolute in nature. The judiciary is in charge of upholding the Constitution and determining whether all laws comply with the Constitution.

The majority's decision to protect Indian democracy from the oppressive actions of the parliament was commendable. With this decision, the parliament's dictatorship came to an end. The majority of the court was concerned that the decision might weaken the constitution. This ruling stopped the legislature from violating citizens' fundamental rights by limiting the legislature's authority. Preserving fundamental human rights that no government can take away was the primary focus of the trial. The Golaknath case upheld the "rule of law" by demonstrating that parliamentarians are too subject to the law.

Kesavananda Bharati was leader of a religious cult in Kerala. Some lands were purchased in the sect's name. According to the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963, which was later revised by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969, the state government was required to acquire some of these lands in order to fulfil its socio-economic duties. In order to enforce his rights under Articles 25 (the right to practise and propagate religion), 26 (the right to manage religious affairs), 14 (the right to equality), 19(1)(f) (the freedom to acquire property), and 31, the petitioner filed a petition with the Apex Court under Rule 32 on March 21st, 1970. (Compulsory Acquisition of Property). While the Court was considering the petition, the Kerala State Government passed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. The Golaknath ruling established the parliament in order to clarify their stance that they are not bound to adequately compensate the landowners amended Article 31(2) in case there property is acquired by the state. The word “amount” was placed instead of compensation in the provision.

The petitioner in the precedent-setting case, among other things, argued that the Parliament's ability to modify the Constitution is constrained and limited. Justice Mudholkar's Basic Structure theory, which was advanced in Sajjan Singh, served as the foundation for this argument of restricted competence with the Parliament. The respondent, or the State, argued the same points it has been making since Shankari Prasad, namely that parliament has unrestricted, total power to modify the Constitution. This state argument was founded on the fundamental tenet of the Indian legal system, the supremacy of parliament. The state also argued that it is very important that there be no conflict between the two countries in order to fulfil its socio-economic commitments provided to the citizens by the union in the Preamble.

By a vote of 7:6, the court ruled that Parliament may change any and all provisions of the constitution, provided that the change does not alter the constitution's fundamental principles. The court's deduction for the answer was the DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE. According to this idea, Parliament may update the Constitution as a whole, but only under the condition that they do not alter any of the elements that make up the Constitution since doing so would render it meaningless.

The Kesavananda Bharati Case exhibits exceptionally high levels of judicial ingenuity. The majority bench's determination to defend the Constitution's core principles was founded on reasonable and defensible logic. Consequently, this admirable decision had restored the public's trust in the judiciary.

The states of Punjab and Bengal were to be divided in the Re Berubari Case. For the purpose of dividing up the state of Bihar, Sir Cyril Redcliffe was appointed chairman of a commission. The Redcliffe line is the name given to a boundary that was established between India and Pakistan.

Following this, there were disagreements between India and Pakistan regarding the precise location of the division. The district of Jalpaiguri was divided between India and Pakistan by Sir Radcliffe, who gave India some thanas and Pakistan the rest. He missed one than during the procedure, namely; Union Berubari No. 12, and on August 12th, 1947, India received it. Pakistan was free to claim the territory as its own due to the commission's omission and inaccurate depiction on the map. In 1952, the Pakistani government challenged the Berubari Union for the first time.

The regions under the Berubari association stayed under the domain of India till such time was a piece of West Bengal. In 1958, an agreement was reached to settle the dispute, with India receiving half of the Berubari Union and India keeping the other half.

In addition, the court ruled that, despite the fact that the preamble serves as a key to the minds of the constitution's authors and explicitly refers to India's sovereignty, it cannot prevent legislation from carrying out its duties or be used to decide ambiguous provisions. It does not come from any of the various powers that the Constitution gives the parliament; These powers include those that are explicitly granted in the Constitution's body and those that may be implied from those granted; The prohibitions and limitations are just as valid as the powers.

In the UK, the legal system is referred to as "common law," which means that judges proclaim that the law is drawn from custom and precedent. Although it is the job of the courts to interpret the laws, not to create them, in actuality judges can create the law by defining what it is. Thus, they have created key elements of the UK constitution, such as individual rights and the notion that public bodies are bound by restrictions and do not have unlimited power. The constitution under the UK system, as we have seen, is dispersed throughout a variety of papers and sources, which can make it particularly challenging to understand. Due to this, the analyses of specialists trying to understand the system might become very significant and powerful.

The United States of America Constitution is a key piece of Western literature and the cornerstone of the country's federal form of government. The Constitution describes the main governing bodies, their spheres of authority, and fundamental rights of people. It is the oldest written national constitution still in operation. Problems with the Articles of Confederation, which gave the majority of authority to a Congress of the Confederation and formed a "solid league of friendship" between the States, led to the necessity for the Constitution. The central authority regulated weights and measures, declared war, conducted diplomacy, and was the last judge of interstate conflicts, therefore this power was incredibly constrained. Importantly, it was wholly reliant on the States for funding because it was unable to raise any on its own

Invitations to a conference in Philadelphia to debate reforming the Articles were extended to the State legislatures in 1787 as part of an effort to amend them. Delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island did not send any representatives) met in Philadelphia in May of that year to start the process of restructuring government. The participants to the Constitutional Convention immediately got to work creating a new United States Constitution. The Constitution's creators placed a high priority on protecting people' freedoms and restricting the scope of the federal authority. The stated guarantees of individual liberty, the theory of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and the checks and balances between each branch were all intended to.

We have conducted a thorough study on various aspects of Constitutional Law in India based on the doctrinal and empirical research. This research is on basis of both primary data i.e. Survey through Questionnaire on constitutional awareness in India among various sections of India and secondary data (case studies, articles and statutes). It can be concluded that at last after considering the landmark constitutional cases that upheld the spirit of our constitution it has been reflected in our Survey Report that there is quite ignorance about the constitutional laws and provisions. This research therefore wanted to point out flaws and bring awareness among people and informing them about the spirit of our constitution. We hope that this Research project would successfully serve the intended purpose. It is very much important to raise awareness and knowledge among people about our constitution. The Government is too trying to work towards this goal by simplifying and making laws easily accessible and understood by the common people. The laws and judgements are being translated into vernacular languages scheduled in our constitution. The Ministry of Law & Justice and Legislative department has now recently translated the Indian Constitution into the 21 regional languages (Assamese, Bengali, Bodo, Dogri, Gujarati, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santhal, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu).We are working towards this goal when India is celebrating the diamond jubilee of its independence.

The foremost limitation is the lack of knowledge among common masses or citizens about statutes and Legal Principles. It is also important to check the validity of sources of data relied upon to complete this research More concerning is the wrong interpretation of Laws. I have deeply scrutinized all the data before incorporating it in my final research work & tried my best to overcome this limitations and make the project report highly reliable.

Books:

Case Laws:

( Landmark Verdicts on Constitutional Laws)

Websites: