This Case Commentary is written by Akanksha Rajput, a Third-Year Law Student of Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajatshan

ABSTRACT

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)[1], which established the basic structure theory and molded the division of power between the legislature and the judiciary, is one of the most significant cases in Indian constitutional law. The conflict arose when Kesavananda Bharati, the leader of the Kerala Edneer Mutt, questioned the legitimacy of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.[2]. These changes attempted to curtail individuals' basic rights, especially their property rights, and to undermine the power of the courts. The case was heard by the greatest bench in Indian judicial history, consisting of 13 judges. The Supreme Court issued the historic ruling by a narrow 7:6 majority. The court upheld Article 368's [3]ability for Parliament to amend the Constitution, but it also placed a significant limitation known as the "basic structure doctrine." This argument holds that the fundamental values of democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law cannot be altered using a constitutional amendment. Additionally, the court determined that the judicial review authority which is a crucial component of this basic framework and is protected by Articles 13 [4]and 32 [5]It could not be eliminated by constitutional revisions. This ensured that the judiciary could continue to closely review changes, maintaining a system of checks and balances. As a result, this idea restricted the reach of the 24th.

1. Primary Details of the Case:

• Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970

• Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

• Parties to the Case:

  • Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors

  • Respondent: State of Kerala & Anr

• Case Decided on: 24/04/1973

• Judges/Bench: S.M. Sikri, 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, Y.V. Chandrachud

• Legal Provisions Involved:

  • Constitution Articles: Article 13, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 31, 368

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner, was one of the leaders of the Edneer Mutt, a substantial proprietor religious organization in Kerala.[6] In 1969 the Kerala state assembly passed the Property Reforms Amendment Act 1963[7] which empowered the government to acquire property from big landlords including the Mutt. On March 21, 1970, Bharati filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution [8]with the Supreme Court, contesting this Act and claiming that he was violated under multiple articles: Article 14 (right to equality)[9], Article 19(1)(f)(freedom to acquire property)[10], Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion)[11], Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs)[12] and Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property)[13].

As the case progressed the Kerala government added more laws and in 1971 it passed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act.[14]. Bharti’s appeal also contested three significant changes the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to the Constitution saying that they do injustice to Parts III, IV, and IV-A and drastically alter the basic structure of the Constitution about fundamental rights. Therefore, the matter is before the Supreme Court of India.

3. ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act is constitutional or not, in particular, while violating fundamental rights?

2. Whether there is a limitation in the extent of Parliament’s powers to alter the Constitution under Article 368 or is this authority limitless?

3. Whether the Parliament alter constitutional provisions and amend Articles, with or without the outreach to affect elements of its basic structure as the notion of the basic structure of the Constitution known is a constitutional principle?

4. Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments genuine in their claim to protect rights, or did they violate a core of rights and alter the basic structure of the document?

5. Whether basic rights under the Constitution, particularly under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 be abolished or violated by changes effected by Parliament?

4. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioner contended that under the Act, his ownership rights were limited, and his liberty intruded on; he therefore complained that his right to own property, enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution was violated. In addition, the petitioner argued Parliament did not have broad power to alter the Constitution, stating only those particular aspects of the Constitution that he highlighted, including property rights, could not be amended or repealed through constitutional amendments. By this sort of thinking, the framework for the fundamental structure philosophy was set.

Petitioner argued that the basic structure of the Constitution including democracy, secularism, and the Rule of the law remains unaltered by the process of legislative alteration through Article 368. Besides these general arguments, the petitioner raised six grounds for violation of the constitution and named the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments[15]. He claimed that these alterations have altered the structure of the Constitution as well as the erosion of basic rights. As pointed out by the petitioner, these changes intended to curtail the freedoms of the person together with other prohibitions on appellate review.

Excising his constitutional rights, he emphasized that judicial review is one of the Constitution’s most essential features that provide essential oversight within the government. Arguing against those in the Parliament who wished to undermine this authority, he asserted that doing so would be to alter the Constitution on its basics.

In addition, he noted that judicial review is among the Constitutional powers that provide for checks and balances within the government, and as such, any effort at restricting the power of the judiciary by parliament will be a clear violation of the Constitutional structure.

Kesavananda Bharati wanted to protect constitutionalism from future executive encroachment in India besides fighting for personal liberties and rights through these arguments; he set out to provide a more encompassing legal rationale for doing so.

Respondent Argument

As to social justice and reduction of economic inequality, the Respondent averred that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was reasonable under Article 19(1)(f), provided for property rights, and was in conformity with Articles 38 and 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy. In this respect, the Respondent stated that by presenting the Act as a socio-economic reform aiming to redistribute land for the benefit of some of the deprived communities, they have met Article 46 by moving society forward toward the improvement of poorer segments. [16]

Moreover, the Respondent urged that according to Article 368, Parliament enjoyed unrestricted powers about the amendment of the Constitution. In the reply, it was stated that it is the Constitution that needs to transform addressing the requirements and sociopolitical and economic conditions of the given period. The State was of the view that any attempt to fetter this ability dilutes parliamentary sovereignty which forms the basis of democracy in India.

The Respondent affirmed the constitutionality of the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-ninth Amendments arguing as follows: It was necessary to provide a solid anchor to Parliament’s legislative authority on social justice concerns without encroaching on rights or converting the Constitution into a charter of rights.

Therefore, the Respondent has denied the right of judges to assess the constitutional changes arguing that such a position would destabilize the power relations and jeopardize legislative sovereignty. However, after careful objection, the honourable apex court laid down the Basic structure theory which curtails the legislative power of Parliament in the alteration of the basic structure while recognizing its role in the social justice delivery system.

5. LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED.

Constitution of India

• Article 19(1)(f): The right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property

• Article 25: freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

• Article 26: Every religious institution has the right to manage their affairs

• Article 14: Right to equality

• Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property [REPEALED]

• Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereof

6. JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF

ISSUE 1: The establishment of the Kerala Land Reforms Act was preserved by the Court, wherein the latter found out that this was a proper law that had to be implemented in the attainment of agrarian reforms for social justice and economic uplift of society[17]. Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property) and 31 (compulsory acquisition of property) that the Act was not a violation of the fundamental rights of the people in as much as it aimed at achieving the goal of public welfare. The rationale given in the Golak Nath v. Union of India [18]In this decision, the State of Punjab (1967) which affirmed the principle that amendments affecting rights of basic structure ought to be examined by the Courts was signifying consistency with this one.

ISSUE 2: the Supreme Court held that parliament has limited and restrictive authority to alter or modify the constitution as per Article 368. The fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be changed or destroyed. The court referred to Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952) and Sajjan Sing v. State of Rajasthan (1965), which examined the scope of parliamentary power and its implications for constitutional amendments, had an impact on this principle, which represented a departure from previous creation of parliamentary sovereignty.

ISSUE 3: The Supreme Court of India accepted and gave legal contours to the doctrine of the basic structure by holding that while exercising its amendment power it cannot change some basic features of the Constitution like democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. This notion was developed to preserve the basic tenets of the constitution, by using the appropriate legal method that was followed in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)[19], a Supreme Court case, referred to where issues to do with fundamental rights and how they were protected were determined.

ISSUE 4: This Department examined the 24, 25, and 29 Constitutional Amendments. The court invalidated some of the Sections of the 25th Amendment on grounds of denying basic constitutional privileges and at the same time affirmed the 29th Amendment but seemed to point out the impact that this would have on the doctrine of the Judicial review. These considerations on the scope and limits of the constitutional amendments were guided by the Court’s previous thoughts.

ISSUE 5: Taking a closer look at the amendments, the 24th, 25th, and 29th were distinguished, and the present decision relies on the provisions prescribed by these amendments. It reaffirmed the 24th Amendment constitutional and partially rejected the 25th Amendment as it infringed on some rights and fundamental liberties and finally conditionally supported the 29th Amendment because of its effects on the issue of judicial assaults. It is with these considerations of the Court in its previous decisions of the nature of the subjects that the Constitution empowers and to what degree such powers may be changed that these findings of the Court were made.

7. INTRODUCTION OF BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court’s introduction of the doctrine of basic structure concept in the Kesavananda Bharati case has been crucial in preserving the equilibrium between constitutional supremacy and legislative sovereignty and the power to alter fundamental rights. It has created a framework for approaching constitutional modifications and defending the essential ideals included in the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the preservation of the cornerstones of individual liberties and government.

Key Aspects of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

1. Definition and Scope: The Article also explains that by the fundamental structure idea, the Parliament can change the Constitution but it can do it to an extent. Every law is part of the superstructure while the constitution is the base and cannot be changed or done away with by an act of Parliament. The Court defines the core as made up of the democracy principle, the secularism principle, the rule of law principle, and the separation of power principles amongst others that constitutionalism.

2. Judicial Review: The fundamental structure doctrine's introduction greatly expanded the function of judicial review in defending constitutional norms.[20] The Supreme Court ruled that changes to the core framework of the Constitution are subject to judicial review to make sure they don't compromise it. This idea guarantees that important aspects of the Constitution don't alter even when laws are passed.

3. Foundational Principles: It should be noted that by the concept of a rigid frame of reference based on the basic structure concept, certain elements of the Constitution cannot be amended by the parliament.

o Democracy: The theory does not underestimate the principles of representative democracy as well as democratic government.

o Secularism: It ensures that the Indian state protects the principles of secularism, the freedom of religion, and no discrimination about religion.

o Rule of Law:: Among the pieces of the basic architecture there is the rule of law which defines compliance and equality when enforcing and dealing with laws known as fairness.

o Judicial Independence: The judiciary alone can ensure constitutional compliance and the balance of power division.

4. Impact on Constitutional Amendments: This way or the other, the Court left no doubt that, while Parliament may amend the Constitution to accommodate altered social and political circumstances, it may do so only within certain bounds that preserve the structure of the Constitution. It guarantees that changes will not erode the principles of this Constitution and acts as a brake on any extravagance by Parliament.

References

[1] Indian Kanoon Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs State of Kerala and Anr (1973) Indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/ accessed on 14 September

[2] Constitution of India

[3] Constitution OF India

[4] Constitution OF India

[5] Constitution OF India

[6]Legal Lock Admin, ‘Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala |Explained Case Brief’( 2021) The Legal Lock https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-on-kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala1973/ on 14 September

[7]Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, Act 35 of 1969

[8]Constitution of India

[9] Constitution of India

[10] Constitution of India

[11] Constitution of India

[12] Constitution of India

[13] Constitution of India, India code ‘The Constitution of India’ (1950) India Code https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15240/1/constitution_of_india.pdf accessed on 14 September

[14] Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act in 1971)

[15]SCC Blog ‘50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ (2023) SCC https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/24/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala/ SSC Online accessed 15 September

[16] Faraz Alam Sagar and CAM Disputes Team ‘Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and The Basic Structure Doctrine’ (2017) https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2017/09/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-kerala-basic-structure-doctrine/ accessed on 15 September

[17]Ria Goyal’s Case Commentary on Waman Rao and Ors. vs Union of India: Analysing the Basic Structure Doctrine & its Evolution’ (2022) Manupatra https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-Commentary-on-Waman-Rao-and-Ors-vs-Union-of-India-Analysing-the-Basic-Structure-Doctrine-its-Evolution accessed on 17 September

[18] Indian kanoon, Golak Nath v State of Punjab (1967) AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762 Indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/ accessed 17 September

[19]Indian kanoon, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/ accessed on 17 September

[20] V.K. Ahuja, Ram Niwas Sharma and Himangshu Ranjan Nath ‘Doctrine of basic Structure Revisiting Kesavananda Bharti Verdict’ (2024) National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam https://nluassam.ac.in/docs/pub/Kesavananda%20Bharati%20Verdict.pdf accessed on 18 September