His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru
and Ors
Vs.
State of Kerala and Anr
AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225
The landmark judgement on basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
Author- Harsh Vardhan Singh, Second year B.A.LLB(Hons), University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
ABSTRACT
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is
one of the most important decisions in the history of the Indian Constitution.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to
change (amend) the Constitution, it cannot change its basic features. These
basic features include things like democracy, the rule of law, and the
independence of the judiciary. The case began when a religious leader,
Kesavananda Bharati, challenged laws that affected his property. The judgment,
decided by a narrow 7:6 majority, created the "basic structure
doctrine," which protects the core values of the Constitution from being
changed, even by Parliament. This decision helped protect citizens’ rights and
ensured that the Constitution remains strong and balanced over time.
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
|
Case no. |
Writ Petition (civil) 135 of 1970 |
|
Jurisdiction |
Supreme Court of India |
|
Petitioner |
Kesavananda Bharati
Sripadagalvaru and ors |
|
Respondent |
State of Kerala and Anr |
|
Case filed on |
21/03/1970 |
|
Date of Judgement |
24/04/1973 |
|
Bench |
S.M.
Sikri, C.J., A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat,
K.K. Mathew, K.S. Hegde M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi and Y.V.
Chandrachud, JJ. |
|
Majority |
Sikri,
C. J.; Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ.; Shelat and Grover, JJ.; Jaganmohan Reddy,
J.; Khanna, J. |
|
Dissent |
Ray,
J.; Palekar, J.; Mathew, J.; Beg, J.; Dwivedi, J.; Chandrachud, J. |
|
Legal provisions involved |
Article 32 , Article 14 , Article
19(1)(f) , Article 25 , Article 26 and Article 31 |
|
Case Summary prepared by |
Harsh Vardhan Singh |
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt (Hindu
monastery) in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government's attempts to acquire
land owned by the mutt under the state’s land reform laws. He filed a writ
petition under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the
right to manage religious affairs. During the pendency of the case, the 29th
Constitutional Amendment was enacted, adding the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the
Ninth Schedule—shielding it from judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati argued that Parliament could not amend
the Constitution in a way that altered or destroyed its essential features,
such as fundamental rights. This led to a landmark constitutional debate on the
extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
1. Scope of Parliament’s Amending Power under Article 368
Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including
Fundamental Rights, under Article 368?
Does Article 368 grant unlimited power to Parliament to
alter the Constitution?
2. Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional
Amendments
Are the 24th and 25th Amendments, which gave Parliament more
power to amend Fundamental Rights, constitutionally valid?
Does the 29th Amendment, which placed certain laws (like
Kerala's Land Reforms Act) into the Ninth Schedule to protect them from
judicial review, violate the Constitution?
3. Whether There Are Implied Limitations on the Amending
Power
Is there a "basic structure" or essential
framework of the Constitution that cannot be amended even by Parliament?
Can Parliament destroy or alter the fundamental character of
the Constitution through amendments?
4. Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles
Can Directive Principles of State Policy be given precedence
over Fundamental Rights?
Are laws enacted to implement Directive Principles exempt
from the test of constitutionality?
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTY
- PLAINTIFF
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the petitioners
challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th and 25th Amendments. Their
argument focused on the scope and limits of Parliament’s power to amend the
Constitution under Article 368.
1. Power to Amend is Not Unlimited
The petitioners contended that although Parliament has the
authority to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. They argued
that the Constitution is based on certain foundational principles which reflect
its true spirit and intent. These core principles form what came to be known as
the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The petitioners asserted
that Parliament cannot alter or dismantle this basic structure through
amendments.
They pointed to earlier judicial opinions, especially the
views of Justice Mudholkar in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
(1965). Though not the majority opinion, Justice Mudholkar had raised a
significant question — whether there are implied limitations on the power of
amendment. The petitioners used this as a foundation to argue that some
essential features of the Constitution are beyond the reach of Parliament’s
amending power.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Another central issue raised by the petitioners was the
violation of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 19(1)(f), which at the
time guaranteed the right to property (later repealed by the 44th Amendment).
The 24th Amendment made it clear that Parliament could amend any part of the
Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The 25th Amendment went further
by restricting the scope of judicial review and allowed laws giving effect to
Directive Principles of State Policy to override Fundamental Rights.
The petitioners strongly opposed these changes, arguing
that:
Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct, and no amendment should
have the effect of taking them away.
Allowing Parliament to amend or curtail these rights would
destroy the very purpose of including them in the Constitution — to protect
individuals against arbitrary state action.
Such amendments were seen as a threat to constitutional
democracy, as they tilted the balance in favor of state power at the cost of
individual liberty.
3. Preservation of Constitutional Identity
The petitioners emphasized that any attempt to alter the
essential features of the Constitution — such as the separation of powers, rule
of law, judicial review, federalism, and the guarantee of fundamental rights —
would result in changing the identity of the Constitution itself. According to
them, this would not be an amendment but a complete rewrite, which goes beyond
the scope of Article 368.
-DEFENDANT -
The State argued that the supremacy of Parliament forms an
essential part of the basic structure of the Indian legal framework. Therefore,
it asserted that Parliament possesses unrestricted authority to amend any part
of the Constitution. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that to
effectively discharge its socio-economic responsibilities, it is crucial that
Parliament be granted unlimited power to make constitutional amendments. They
emphasized that such power is necessary for the government to bring about
progressive reforms aimed at achieving the goals laid out in the Constitution.
Legal Issues Examined by the Court
1. Applicability of Constitutional Amendments to Fundamental
Rights: Can amendments made under Article 368 of the Constitution be extended
to affect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution?
2. Validity of the 24th Amendment Act, 1971: Is the 24th
Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 1971, constitutionally legitimate?
3. Validity of the 25th Amendment Act, 1972: Does the 25th
Amendment to the Constitution, introduced in 1972, conform to constitutional
principles?
4. Legitimacy of the 29th Amendment Act: Is the 29th
Amendment Act constitutionally valid, and to what extent does Parliament have
the authority to amend the Constitution under its legislative powers?
JUDGEMENT
The term amendment under Article 368 of the Indian
Constitution must be interpreted in a way that allows Parliament to make
necessary changes but prevents it from altering or destroying the fundamental
structure of the Constitution. This implies a limitation on the amending power
to ensure the Constitution's identity remains intact.
Justices Hegde and Mukherjea emphasized that the Indian
Constitution is more of a social document rooted in a broader philosophy. They
differentiated between basic, unchangeable elements and circumstantial ones
that could adapt over time. They stated that the core features outlined in the
Preamble cannot be altered or weakened, even for the purpose of creating a
welfare state, and therefore struck down Article 31C.
Justice Jaganmohan Reddy noted that while the Constitution
allows for amendments, these must not amount to repeal or destruction of its
key elements. He held that the basic features—including justice, equality, and
freedom—are protected and cannot be removed or significantly altered. He also
declared Article 31D unconstitutional for infringing on Article 14, reinforcing
that no amendment can override the fundamental rights or the basic structure.
Justice H.R. Khanna agreed that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but these powers do not extend to dismantling its foundational framework. He underscored that any amendment must preserve the institutional structure and essential features, leading to the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine—a principle now central to Indian constitutional law.
IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE
The Kesavananda Bharati case holds immense importance in
Indian constitutional law as it laid down the doctrine of the basic structure
of the Constitution. According to this principle, certain essential
elements—such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and
judicial independence—form the core framework of the Constitution and cannot be
altered or destroyed by Parliament, even through constitutional amendments.
CONCLUSION
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is a landmark in Indian
constitutional law, as it introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that
while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental
features like democracy, rule of law, and judicial independence.
This judgment ensured a balance between Parliament's power and the Constitution's supremacy, safeguarding citizens' rights and democratic values. It reinforced the role of the judiciary as the protector of the Constitution and prevented any drastic changes that could undermine its core principles.
In essence, the ruling preserved the spirit and identity of
the Constitution, making it a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.
- Kesavananda Bharati case
- Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala
- Basic Structure Doctrine
- Landmark case on Indian Constitution
- Supreme Court Constitution amendment case
- Article 368 Constitution of India
- Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles
- Kesavananda Bharati judgment summary
- Basic structure of Indian Constitution
- Kesavananda case impact
Post a Comment