KesavanandaBharati V. State of Kerala

KesavanandaBharati

V.

State of Kerala

(1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India)

This  case analysis is written by - Anamika Rao , B.A.LL.B (H) ,C.M.P Degree College, University of Allahabad .

Landmark Case On The Basic Structure Doctrine

ABSTRACT

This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, the seminal decision in KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is important in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. In light of constitutional amendments that threatened to restrict or eradicate fundamental rights, particularly in relation to property and land reform, the Court had to determine whether Parliament had unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368. By a slim 7:6 majority, the Court ruled that although Parliament has extensive authority to change the Constitution, it cannot change or eliminate its fundamental tenets, which include the rule of law, judicial review, federalism, democracy, and secularism. The ruling ensured that all amendments to the constitution would remain open to judicial scrutiny while maintaining the integrity of the 24^th Amendment and certain aspects of the 25^th and 29^th Amendments. The final vote came from Justice H.R. Khanna, following the individual opinions expressed by each of the 13 judges. By affirming the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional integrity, this decision shifted the focus of India’s constitutional framework from parliamentary supremacy to that of constitutional supremacy. The verdict has become fundamental in preserving democratic principles and has been referenced in many subsequent rulings, reinforcing its significance as a constitutional milestone despite critiques regarding its vagueness and potential for judicial overreach.

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

 

Case No	:	Writ Petition(Civil)
Jurisdiction	:	SupremeCourt ofIndia
Case Filed on	:	21st March 1970
Case Decidedon	:	24th April 1973
Judges	:	13 Judges Constitutional bench (Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice A.N. Grover, Justice A.N. Ray, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice S.N. Dwivedi, Justice P. Jagannatha Reddy, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice A.K. Mukherjea)
LegalProvisionInvolved	:	Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 31, 368 of the Constitution; 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments
Case SummaryPreparedby	:	Anamika Rao

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Following independence, India enacted socialist-inspired land reforms in an attempt to reduce inequality. The property right, which was once a fundamental right, was frequently in conflict with these reforms. In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament lacked the authority to change fundamental rights.

As a consequence of this decision, the 24^th, 25^th, and 29^th Amendments were passed, granting Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution and protecting land reform laws from judicial scrutiny.

 As a result, several petitions contesting these changes were submitted. KesavanandaBharati’s petition, which was first filed to safeguard the assets of his religious organization but was later broadened to question the constitutionality of the Parliament’s amending powers, was one of them.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala case started when the leader of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, KesavanandaBharati, argued that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, was unconstitutional because it infringed upon his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. The 24^th, 25^th, and 29^th Constitutional Amendments, which aimed to give Parliament unrestricted power to amend the Constitution and place laws beyond judicial review by placing them in the Ninth Schedule, caused the case to spread into the realm of constitutional law even though the request for review initially concentrated on religious property rights.

The 29th Amendment, whichh added the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Ninth Schedule during the proceedings, sparked a wider challenge to Parliament’s ability to amend under Article 368. According to the petitioner, these amendments violated the fundamental framework of the Constitution. In order to determine whether Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution was inherently limited, the Supreme Court assembled the largest bench in Indian history, consisting of 13 judges.

ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Does Parliament have the authority to change any aspect of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights clause?

2. Is it possible to make unlimited and unfettered constitutional amendments under Article 368?

3. Is the validity of the 24^th, 25^th, and 29^th Amendments?

4. Does the Constitution contain a fundamental “basic structure” that cannot be changed?

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that fundamental rights are inalienable and constitute an integral part of the Constitution’s fundamental framework. According to Golaknath v. State of Punjab, Parliament was incapable of amending Part III of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that since an amendment made under Article 368 is also “law” under Article 13(2), it cannot violate fundamental rights. It was also maintained that democracy, the rule of law, and secularism are fundamental values that Parliament cannot change, not even by amending the Constitution.

Respondent:

The Kerala State argued that Parliament has unrestricted authority under Article 368, which includes the power to change or revoke any provision of the Constitution, including Part III.

It was argued that a constitutional amendment is exempt from the restrictions imposed on regular legislation because it is not “law” under Article 13(2).

Particularly about agrarian reforms, the amendments were justified as necessary to fulfill the Directive Principles of State Policy. It was further asserted that unelected judges should not have the authority to restrict the will of Parliament since it is the people’s sovereign will.

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED

•Article 368: Parliament’s authority to change the Constitution.

•Article 13(2) forbids the state from enacting legislation that restricts or eliminates fundamental rights.

•Articles 14, 19, (1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 are fundamental rights.

•Relevant Amendments: 25^th (restricted property rights), 29^th (added land reform laws to Ninth Schedule), and 24^th (affirmed amending power).

JUDGEMENT

The ruling, which was rendered by a razor-thin majority of 7:6, concluded that although Parliament does have the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this authority is limited. The Basic Structure Doctrine was established by the Court, which stated that although Parliament can change the majority of the Constitution, it cannot change or eliminate its essential elements. This ruling was historic in both its substance and delivery style.

 The 13 judges each penned an opinion that reflected their interpretations and philosophical stances.

Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, who led the majority opinion, stated that: The legitimacy of the 24^th Amendment, which upheld Parliament’s amending authority, was established. The 25^th Amendment was only partially enforceable; while the first part, which restricted property rights, was maintained, the second part, which excluded judicial review, was overturned. Even though the 29^th Amendment was maintained, laws listed in the Ninth Schedule could still be challenged in court if they don’t follow the fundamental framework.

The opinion of Justice H.R. Khanna, who was instrumental in forming the majority, was the most critical and frequently cited. Although Parliament could amend the Constitution, he reasoned, it shouldn’t modify the fundamental principles or principles of the document.

Justice A.N. Ray and the other dissenting judges contended that the judiciary shouldn’t have any restrictions on Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution. They held that since Parliament is the people’s representative, it ought to have complete control over changes to the constitution. While not providing a comprehensive definition, the Court recognized several essential components of the Basic Structure Doctrine, including

1.The Constitution’s primacy

2.Forms of government that are both democratic and Republican

3.No religiousness Division of powers

4.The federal nature of Legal evaluation adherence to the law integrity and unity of the country 5.The individual’s freedom and dignity

6.The sovereign status of the Indian state

This principle has been used in several later cases to overturn laws and amendments that sought to weaken the foundations of the constitution.

IMPACTAND SIGNIFICANCE

 

Several important decisions have cited the Basic Structure Doctrine established in this case:

A provision in the 39^th Amendment that attempted to shield the prime minister’s election from judicial scrutiny was overturned by the court in the 1975 case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain.

It was reaffirmed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) that the basic structure includes limited amending power.

In the 1981 case of Waman Rao v. Union of India, it was decided that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 1973 must pass the Basic Structure test.

The perspective that any law, including those in the Ninth Schedule, must pass the Basic Structure test if it affects fundamental rights was reaffirmed in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

These cases show KesavanandaBharati’s lasting influence as a judicial instrument to stop constitutional subversion.

CRITICISM

Despite being widely praised, the ruling has not been without criticism:

1.Vagueness: There is no clear definition for the term “basic structure.” There have been claims of judicial overreach as a result of the judiciary’s broad interpretive authority.

2.Democratic Concerns: According to detractors, unelected judges shouldn’t have the last word on the fundamental elements of the Constitution since this could erode democratic decision-making.

3.Judicial Activism: The Court has been accused of breaking the separation of powers by making laws instead of interpreting them. The ruling is typically regarded as a safeguard against possible abuse of constitutional authority despite these reservations.

CONCLUSTION

An Important turning point in the history of Indian constitutional law was the decision in KesavanandaBharati v. State of Kerala. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which placed crucial restrictions on Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution. This safeguard signifies a change from the idea of parliamentary sovereignty to one of constitutional supremacy and shields fundamental principles from capricious modifications. It highlights that although Parliament represents the will of the people, it must function within the parameters established by the Constitution. The ruling effectively strikes a balance between the need for change and the upholding of fundamental democratic principles, such as individual rights, federalism, secularism, judicial review, and the rule of law.

Among the 13 rulings, Justice H.R. Khanna’s crucial ruling emphasized that the fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be disregarded by simple majority rulings. The doctrine has been upheld in many landmark cases, despite criticism that it is an overreach by the judiciary and that there are ambiguities surrounding what the “basic structure” is. It continues to be a crucial defense against any efforts to compromise the integrity of the constitution. As a result, this decision not only represents a major legal turning point but also acts as a strong defender of India’s democratic values and constitutional precepts, guaranteeing that the concepts of justice and liberty will be upheld for many years to come.

Hastags:- 

#KesavanandaBharati #BasicStructureDoctrine #IndianConstitution #SupremeCourtOfIndia #LandmarkJudgment #ConstitutionalLaw #FundamentalRights #JudicialReview #DoctrineOfBasicStructure #StateVsIndividual #LegalHistory