Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

INTRODUCTION

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 24, 1973. The dispute arose from the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire land belonging to Kesavananda Bharati’s religious institution under the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963. The petitioner challenged the validity of the constitutional amendments that sought to restrict fundamental rights, arguing that they violated the core principles of the Constitution.

The key issues in this case focused on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and whether there are inherent limitations on this power to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” affirming that while Parliament has broad amending authority, it cannot alter the essential identity of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963, which imposed restrictions on the management and ownership of religious property. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31.

While the case was pending, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which aimed to expand its power to amend the Constitution and limit judicial review over laws affecting property rights. The petitioner amended his writ petition to contest the constitutional validity of these amendments, claiming that Parliament’s power under Article 368 was not unlimited and could not be used to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The case was heard by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, making it one of the most significant constitutional cases in Indian history.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether Parliament have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368?

2. Whether any inherent limitations on Parliament’s amending power, or can it alter the basic structure of the Constitution?

3. Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments violate fundamental rights or the essential features of the Constitution?

4. To what extent can the judiciary review constitutional amendments, and does the doctrine of implied limitations apply to Article 368?

ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER

1. The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, argued that the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969 violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(f) (Right to Property), and 25 (Right to Practice and Propagate Religion). He claimed that the Act unjustly interfered with his religious and property rights as the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious institution.

2. The petitioner asserted that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not absolute and could not be exercised in a manner that destroyed or altered the basic structure of the Constitution. He contended that fundamental rights, being a core part of the Constitution, could not be abrogated through an amendment.

3. The petitioner challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, arguing that they attempted to remove judicial review and limit fundamental rights, which are essential features of the Constitution. He emphasized that the amendments, particularly the 25th Amendment, curtailed property rights and the right to seek legal remedies, thereby violating the principles of justice and fairness.

4. The petitioner cited legal precedents, including the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. He argued that the Constitution is founded on principles of democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, which cannot be undermined by legislative actions.

5. The petitioner sought a declaration that the contested constitutional amendments and the Kerala Land Reforms Act were unconstitutional and void. He requested the court to uphold the supremacy of fundamental rights and ensure that Parliament could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments.

ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent, the State of Kerala, defended the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. They argued that the Act was enacted to promote social justice and ensure an equitable distribution of land. The respondent emphasized that the legislation aimed to eliminate socio-economic disparities and was consistent with the Directive Principles of State Policy outlined in the Constitution.

2. The respondent contended that Parliament has the absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368. They argued that the Constitution does not impose any explicit limitations on Parliament’s amending power; therefore, amendments to fundamental rights fall within its legislative competence.

3. The respondent referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) and Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), where the Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. They argued that the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that no part of the Constitution is immune from amendment.

4. The respondent also claimed that the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were enacted to address the uncertainties created by the Golaknath case (1967), which incorrectly limited Parliament’s authority to amend fundamental rights. The state stressed that these amendments were necessary to implement land reforms and to prevent judicial interference in progressive legislation.

5. The respondent sought a declaration affirming that Parliament has unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. They urged the Court to uphold both the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the constitutional amendments as valid and enforceable.

REASONING

The Supreme Court case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) examined whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning fundamental rights. The Court ruled that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it could not alter or destroy its basic structure. This decision aimed to balance parliamentary authority with the need to preserve the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which holds that certain core principles—such as democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and judicial review—must remain intact. If an amendment sought to dismantle these essential features, it would be deemed unconstitutional. This doctrine ensured that, although Parliament had wide-ranging powers, it could not fundamentally alter the identity of the Constitution.

A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the reaffirmation of judicial review as an integral part of the Constitution. The Court stated that laws and amendments must remain subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent potential misuse of power. This ruling also addressed the limitations established by the earlier Golaknath decision, which had claimed that fundamental rights could not be amended. The Court in Kesavananda Bharati overruled Golaknath, allowing for amendments to fundamental rights, but only as long as they did not violate the basic structure.

Regarding the specific amendments in question, the Court upheld the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments but struck down the second part of Article 31C, which sought to exclude certain laws from judicial review. This decision ensured that land reform laws remained valid while also maintaining the principle that courts must have the power to review amendments.

In essence, the judgment established constitutional safeguards against arbitrary amendments, ensuring that the Indian Constitution could evolve without losing its fundamental character. The Basic Structure Doctrine has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, influencing future rulings and protecting the democratic framework from excessive legislative interference.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority of 7 to 6, upheld the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments while establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including fundamental rights. However, it clarified that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Court overruled the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had previously held that fundamental rights were beyond the scope of amendment. It also struck down the second part of Article 31C, which sought to exclude laws implementing Directive Principles from judicial review, arguing that it violated the basic structure by undermining the power of the judiciary.

The Court emphasized the necessity of preserving essential features such as democracy, secularism, the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review. It held that any constitutional amendment that disrupts these core principles would be unconstitutional.

Thus, while the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was upheld, the ruling imposed significant limitations on its ability to alter the fundamental framework. The Basic Structure Doctrine introduced in this case became a landmark principle in Indian constitutional law, ensuring that future amendments must adhere to the foundational values of the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court examined the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, focusing specifically on its authority to alter fundamental rights. The Court analyzed Article 368 and concluded that while Parliament possesses extensive amending powers, these powers are not absolute. The judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution—such as democracy, secularism, judicial review, and the rule of law—cannot be changed or destroyed through amendments.

The Court distinguished this case from Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), in which it previously ruled that fundamental rights were beyond Parliament’s amendment power. By overruling Golaknath, the Court clarified that Parliament can amend fundamental rights, but only if such amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court addressed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. While it upheld these amendments, it struck down the second part of Article 31C, which sought to eliminate judicial review for laws implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court reasoned that such a provision would undermine the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.

Through this analysis, the Supreme Court established that the spirit of constitutionalism must be upheld. Any amendment that disrupts the essential framework of the Constitution would be deemed unconstitutional. This ruling set a critical precedent for future cases, ensuring that while Parliament holds significant legislative power, it cannot compromise the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark decision that established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution remains intact. By affirming Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution while setting limits on its authority to alter essential features, the Court struck a balance between constitutional flexibility and stability.

This ruling reinforced the supremacy of judicial review, ensuring that amendments cannot undermine democracy, secularism, or the rule of law. By partially striking down Article 31C, the Court upheld the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights while allowing for the implementation of progressive legislation.

The judgment serves as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that future amendments respect the core principles of the Constitution. It continues to be a guiding precedent for Indian constitutional law, shaping subsequent decisions and reinforcing the idea that while laws may evolve, the fundamental identity of the Constitution must remain preserved.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/

This article is written by Jyoti Kumari student of Department of Law, United University, Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.