[Polity] The crux of Kesavanand Bharati & Golaknath case

Sanjay asked,

can u plz tall me the imp cases which we ve to study like kesavananda bharati case etc regarding polity plz also tell the brief sources frm which i can easily understand the cases.i downloaded the above mentioned case bt that was abt 800 pgs verdict in most law language which i found hard to understand…..plz help me in this
thanks

This Golaknath and Kesvanand Bharti has bored me (and many of us)
enough- whenever you’re reading something in polity, they pop out of
nowhere (especially those magz articles and ready made class-notes), so
here is the crux of the whole matter. There is no need to mug up the judgement lines verbatim.

here goes the brief list (case name, year and what did the Supreme court ruled in that case and how parliament reacted to it?)

Shankari Prasad /1951
SC said:
yes Government  can aquire private property for public cause
yes parliament can amend fundamental rights


Golaknath v Punjab 1967
Supreme court reverts from previous judgment- now Supreme court says

• NO parliament cannot amend anything related to fundamental rights.
• We (SC) can revoke any laws in conflict with Fund.rights according to art #13

To counter this SC judgement, Parliament passes 24th amendment in ’71 saying
yes parliament can amend or take away any Fund.right

Keshvanand Bharti vs Keral /73
Now again SC changes its position.
SC says : yes, parliament can amended fundamental rights but it cannot change the BASIC structure of the Constitution.

*for explanation of basic structure of Constitution, refer to 
Indian Polity by M.Laxmikanth (Tata Macgrawhill Publication)
If you’re Yet to purchase Laxmikanth, Do it from Flipkart.com, Get it at home within 3 business-days. with almost 50% discount!


Back to the topic:
parliament again makes 42nd amendment to counter this- with following two provisions.

1. Constitutional amendment cannot be challenged in courts
2. Parliament can amend anything and everything of the Constitution , even if it is against the fundamental rights.

Minerawa Mills /80
SC rejects above 42nd amendment, because it violated the basic structure of Constitution.

There are some other important cases too: (list is not exhaustive)

Bommai
SC sets guidelines about how and when to impose # 356 (President’s rule)
Union Government cannot impose President’s rule on any state, according to its whims and fancies.

Indira Sawhney
Creamy layer in OBC

Vishakha
SC set the anti-sexual harassment guidelines