Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): Landmark Case That Shaped India's Constitution

KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERELA, AIR 1973 SC 1461 ;(1973) 4 SCC 225

📲 Join WhatsApp Group

🔔 Join Telegram Channel

Landmark case for Basic Doctrine Structure of Constitutional law in India

Author- Aarti Yadav, B.A.LLB(Hons), C.M.P Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

This judgment matkedy as a leading decision of the Indian Supreme Court. It has established the "BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE" – the notion that while the Parliament has wide powers to amend the constitution, it does not have the power to destroy or alter the basic structure of the constitution. The case is design to question and in challenge of Land Reform Act and the amendment done by the constitution.By the majority of 7:6, the Supreme Court held that certain basic features of the Constitution could not be violated. This ruling preserved the supremacy of the Constitution and ensured that future amendments do not erode its democratic character.

1-PRIMARY DETAILS:

SERIAL	FIELD	DETAILS
1	CASE NO.	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 135 of 1970
2	JURISDICTION	Supreme Court Of India
3	CASE FILED ON	21st March 1970
4	CASE DECIDED ON	24th April 1973
5	JUDGES	13 Judge Bench led by Chief Justice S.M SIKRI and others.
6	LEGAL PROVISIONS	Article 368, Article 13, Fundamental Rights (Part III)
7	JUDGEMENT TYPE	Majority 7:6
8	CASE SUMMARY BY	AARTI YADAV

 

2- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati who was the head of Edneer Mutt a religious institution in Kerala. He challenged the Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969.The Kerala Govt. under land reform policies passed the laws that imposed restriction on the management and ownership of the Mutt’s property. He has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India claiming that the Act is violative of his fundamental rights and particularly the right to property and the right to freedom of religion.

In the mean time Parliament enacted a series of constitutional amendments-24^th, 25th,26th and 29^th Amendments-enhancing its power to amend the constitution even to the extent of curbing fundamental rights. Therefore the constitutional validity was also challenged, making the case a broader question of constitutional doctrine rather than a mere property dispute.

3-ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

The major issues that were involvedin this case was-

1.      Constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reform Act: The primary issue was the enactment of the act which placed a limit on the amount of the land that a person could hold and provide for the acquisition of the excess land from the landowners.

2.      The extent of the Parliament’s power to amend the constitution: This case arises the question before Supreme Court that whether the Parliament’s power to amend constitution was unlimited or whether there was limits to the power.

3.      The Doctrine of Basic Structure of  Constitution:The Supreme Court in its judgment established the Doctrine of Basic Structure of  Constitution, which holds that certain fundamental features of the constitution ,such as the supremacy of constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by the Parliament. The issue was whether this doctrine was a part of the constitution and whether the parliament’s power to amend the constitution extended to this doctrine.

4-ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:

4.1   Petitioner- His holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru

Represented by senior Advocates like Nani Palkhivala and others

ARGUMENTS-The petitioner argued that the Kerala Land Reform Act infringed upon his fundamental rights mainly Article 14,the right to property under Article 19(1)(f), the right to manage the religious affairs as under Article 26.He also challenged over the recent amendments which violated the core principle of the constitution. He also contended that the term ‘amendment’ under Article 368 did not mean unlimited power of amendment of parliament,the constitution as inherited the basic structure principles-which Parliament can not alter through a formal amendments.The petitioner in view with precedent case i.e. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab,AIR 1967 SC 1643(1967)(India), which denied the power of the parliament to amend fundamental right, as correct.

4.2   Respondent-State of Kerala & Anr.

Represented by Attorney General Niren De and others.

ARGUMENTS-The respondent argued that the term ‘amendment’ in art. 368 should be interpreted broadly to include addition, variation or repeal of any constitutional provisions; also the parliament had absolute and sovereign power to amend any part of the constitution. The ruling in Golaknath case was criticized by the respondent claiming that it unduly restricted parliament power to legislate for public welfare and social justice reform. The govt. also mentioned that the amendment, unlike ordinary laws enacted through a special procedure and therefore cannot be constrained by art. 13.The members of the parliament are elected by the people itself therefore, can modify the fundamental laws according to the needs of the citizens.

5-LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED:

·         India Const. art. 368  - Procedure and Power of constitution to amend the constitution.

·         India Const. art. 13(2)- Bar on laws that infringe fundamental rights.

·         India Const. art. 19, cl.1(a)- Right to freedom of speech and expression

·         AMENDMENTS IN QUESTION- The 24^th,25^th,26^th and 29^th  Constitutional Amendments.

·         Important precedent – Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (India), Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (India), Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC845 (India)

·         Introduction and development of Basic Structure Doctrine

6-JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court, in a historical 7:6 majority decision, propounded the basic structure doctrine of the constitution, which holds that certain fundamental features of the constitution such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law, cannot be amended by parliament. The amending power is wide but limited. The court also held that the power of judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure, and cannot be taken away by the constitutional amendments(overruled Golaknath 1967).

Justice H.R Khanna’s opinion was marked as a crucial and decisive turning point in favor of preserving the basic structure (formed a swing vote)

JUDGES IN MAJORITY: Justice H.R Khanna , CJ S.M. Sikri , Justice J.M Shelat  Justice K.S. Hegde , Justice A.N. Grover , Justice B.K. Mukherjee , Justice P. Jagannatha Reddy .

JUDGES IN MINORITY: Justice A.N. Ray, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice M.G. Beg, Justice S.N. Dwivedi, Justice Y.V. Chandracud

7-IMPACT  AND SIGNIFICANCE:

The ruling ensured long term constitutional stability, aiming to upheld constitutional morality and the core democratic values, it also empowers the judiciary to review the amendments. It maintained the balance of power between the organs preventing the constitutional authoritarianism.

The case has since been cited and reaffirmed in various decisions like-

·         Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)- Struck down part of 39^th Amendment.

·         Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)- Reaffirmed that amending power is limited.

·         I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)- Held that laws in ninth schedule can be reviewed if they violates the basic structure.

8- CONCLUSION:

This judgment of Supreme Courts is considered as a landmark judgment in constitutional law that is held on by one of the largest bench in history. Thisjudgment upholds the power of parliament to amend till it do not disturb the essence of Basic Structure .This case has a lasting effect on the relationship between legislature and judiciary in India ensuring that  fundamental and core principle of constitution should be maintained preserving the basic rights and duties of the citizens.

 

Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): Landmark Case That Shaped India's Constitution

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Indian Constitution.

• Kesavananda Bharati case summary
• Basic Structure Doctrine
• Landmark judgment of 1973
• Article 368 Indian Constitution
• 24th, 25th, 29th Constitutional Amendment
• Fundamental Rights vs Amendment Power
• Rule of law and constitutional supremacy
• H.R. Khanna judgment
• Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973
• Indian constitutional law landmark cases.