Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

📚 Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225

📅 Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973

⚖️ Bench: 13-Judge Constitutional Bench

• Chief Justice S.M. Sikri (delivered the majority opinion)

• Justice J.M. Shelat

• Justice K.S. Hegde

• Justice A.N. Grover

• Justice P. Jagmohan Reddy

• Justice H.R. Khanna

• Justice K.K. Mathew

• Justice M.H. Beg

• Justice S.N. Dwivedi

• Justice A.K. Mukherjea

• Justice Y.V. Chandrachud

• Justice D.G. Palekar

• Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy

---

Introduction:

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is one of the most influential judgments in Indian constitutional history. This case firmly established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

The verdict, delivered by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, had far-reaching consequences, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution remain inviolable.

---

🎯 Facts of the Case:

• Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

• The Mutt owned significant land, which was impacted by the Kerala government's land reforms aimed at redistributing land to poor farmers.

• Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that the legislation violated his fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.

• During the proceedings, the case went beyond the issue of land reform and questioned the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

---

⚖️ Legal Issues Raised:

1. Does Parliament have unlimited power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution?

2. Can Parliament alter, amend, or destroy fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

3. Does the power of amendment include the power to repeal or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution?

---

🕰️ Background:

Before Kesavananda Bharati, the following cases played a critical role:

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):

   • The Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights.

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):

   • Again upheld Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967):

   • Overturned previous decisions and held that fundamental rights cannot be amended by Parliament.

In response to Golak Nath, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, asserting its power to amend fundamental rights. This led to the challenge in Kesavananda Bharati.

---

⚖️ Arguments by the Parties:

📢 Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati):

• Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that alters or destroys its basic structure.

• Fundamental rights are a part of the basic framework of the Constitution and are immune from parliamentary amendments.

• The Kerala Land Reforms Act violates the fundamental right to property and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

📢 Respondent (State of Kerala):

• Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

• The amendments to the Constitution made through the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were valid.

• Land reform laws were introduced to achieve social and economic equality, which is a directive principle of state policy.

---

🔥 Key Issues and Rulings:

1. Extent of Parliamentary Power to Amend the Constitution

• The court ruled that Parliament's power under Article 368 is not absolute.

• Majority Opinion: While Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure or essential features.

2. Doctrine of Basic Structure Introduced

• The Basic Structure Doctrine was established, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended.

• These include:

  • Supremacy of the Constitution

  • Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of India

  • Secularism

  • Separation of powers

  • Federalism

  • Dignity of the individual and fundamental rights

3. Validity of 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments

• The 24th Amendment, which gave Parliament the power to amend fundamental rights, was upheld.

• The 25th Amendment was partially struck down—while Article 31C (which gave primacy to Directive Principles over fundamental rights) was upheld, it was declared unconstitutional to the extent that it curtailed judicial review.

---

Doctrine of Basic Structure:

The court held that Parliament cannot use its constituent power under Article 368 to destroy or damage the basic features of the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine protects the fundamental identity and integrity of the Indian Constitution.

✅ Essential Features Identified by the Court:

• Supremacy of the Constitution

• Sovereignty and democracy

• Secular character of the nation

• Separation of powers

• Federal character of the Constitution

• Unity and integrity of India

• Free and fair elections

• Independence of the judiciary

Significance and Impact of the Judgment:

• Established Judicial Supremacy: The judgment asserted the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and reaffirmed that judicial review is essential for protecting constitutional values.

• Limited Parliamentary Power: The verdict imposed limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, ensuring that the basic structure remains intact.

• Guided Future Amendments: All constitutional amendments post-1973 have been measured against the Basic Structure Doctrine, preventing Parliament from diluting or altering the core tenets of the Constitution.

• Strengthened Democracy: It safeguarded the democratic structure and fundamental rights of Indian citizens, ensuring that future governments cannot arbitrarily alter the Constitution’s core principles.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

• Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are void.

• Fundamental Rights (Part III): Guaranteed civil liberties and rights that cannot be altered by legislative action.

Criticism and Challenges:

• Judicial Activism Debate: Critics argued that the judiciary’s introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine amounted to judicial overreach.

• Ambiguity of Basic Structure: Some critics argued that the definition of basic structure is subjective and left open to judicial interpretation.

Subsequent Cases Following Kesavananda Bharati:

1. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):

   • Applied the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down provisions of the 39th Amendment that aimed to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review.

2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):

   • Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down amendments that attempted to limit judicial review.

3. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):

   • Clarified that amendments made after 24 April 1973 would be subject to the Basic Structure Test.

Conclusion:

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. By establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that the fundamental identity of the Constitution remains sacrosanct and protected against arbitrary legislative amendments.

The judgment continues to serve as a safeguard for democracy, judicial independence, and fundamental rights in India.

Please subscribe to Lex Regula & Like our Facebook Page for latest updates of the legal world.