Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru & Ors. vs. State Of Kerala & Anr.

FACT OF THE CASE

• The Kerala State government enacted the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969, which conferred upon the government the right to acquire some of the land owned by Edneer Mutt, of which Keshav Nand Bharti was the leader.
• Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
• Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
• Article 14: Right to equality
• Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
• Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
• On March 21, 1970, Kesavananda Bharti filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to enforce his rights guaranteed by Article 25                                                      

ISSUE RASIED

1. Whether the following are constitutionally valid?
   • 24^th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
   • 25^th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972

2 . What is the extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution?

Contentions of the Petitioners

• The petitioner argued in Keshwanand Bharti vs State of Kerala that because Parliament has limited power to amend the Constitution, it cannot do so in an arbitrary and unrestrained way.
• They argued that the 24^th & 25^th Constitutional Amendments were violative of the Fundamental Right provided in Article 19(1)(f).
• The petitioner referred to the statement given by Justice Mudholkar in the case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan (1964) wherein it was said that the Parliament cannot exercise its power to amend the constitution by modifying its basic structure.

Contentions of the Respondents

• The State said that the Parliament’s supremacy is the Indian legal system’s basic structure and hence, it has boundless power to amend the Constitution.  This argument was based on a fundamental principle of the Indian legal system, namely the supremacy of Parliament.

RATIO DECIDENDI ( 7:6 )

• (The majority view in Kesavananda Bharati Case) Chief Justice SM Sikri and Justice, JM Shelat, Justice KS Hegde, Justice AN Grover, Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice Hans Raj Khanna, Justice BK Mukherjea: The power to amend does not include the power to change the basic structure of the Constitution to the point of altering its identity. This proposition will be used to determine the legitimacy of a constitutional amendment.
• (The majority view) Justice YV Chandrachud, Justice AN Ray, Justice DG Palekar, Justice KK Mathew, Justice MH Beg, Justice SN Dwivedi: the power of amendment under Article 368 is plenary, with no implicit or inherent limits, and includes the ability to introduce, change, or repeal various articles of the Constitution, except those relating to fundamental rights.

JUDGEMENT

The thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Keshwanand Bharti Case 1973 by a majority of 7:6 held that the Parliament has the authority to amend any clause of the constitution as long as the amendment does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The Indian Constitution can be amended by the Parliament in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment did not change the Constitution’s basic structure. The minority, however, in their dissenting opinion, were wary of giving the Parliament unlimited amending power. The court held that the 24^th Constitutional Amendment was entirely valid. But it found the first part of the 25^th Constitutional Amendment to be intra vires and the second part of the same ultra vires.

Supreme Court has the authority to corrode the Basic Structure of the Constitution, nor can it withdraw the mandate to create a welfare state and a fair society. The Basic Structure Doctrine was thus formulated in the Kesavananda case which implied that, although the Parliament has the authority to amend the entire Constitution, they must do so in a way that does not contradict the features so fundamental to the Constitution that it would be spiritless without them.

CONCLUSION

It was a 700 page judgement where the supreme court of India held by a largest part of 7:6 that parliament . The Kesavanand Bharti decision forms the most powerful and binding precedent in the history of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine is used to determine the constitutional validity of any amendment or act of the Parliament. In simple words, the Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule that states that certain provisions of the Constitution that are so fundamental to the values, objectives and sole of the Constitution cannot be amended under any circumstances. It is because of the bench’s decision that the identity and spirit of the Constitution have not been lost. This landmark case has given our Constitution stability. Even though the petitioner lost this case partially, the SC ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case turned out to be a saviour for Indian democracy, and also prevented the Constitution from losing its spirit.