This Case Commentary is written by Tanishka Rana, a Third-year law student of Delhi metropolitan education Noida

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Judgment Date: 24 April 1973
Appellant: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, Head of the Edneer Mutt, Kerala
Respondent: State of Kerala and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri (CJI), Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice A.N. Grover, Justice P. Jagannath Reddy, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice A.K. Mukherjee, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice S.N. Dwivedi, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice S.N. Ray

INTRODUCTION

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the landmark cases in the history of India where there was the largest constitutional bench ever assembled in Indian judicial history. This case is known for its judgment based on the "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Indian Constitution. Here is a summary of the case and its significance in Indian law:

FACTS OF THE CASE

The head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition against the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, because this Act places restrictions on the management of property owned by religious institutions. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, standing against the provisions of the law stating that it is a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (Freedom of Religion), 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs), and 31 (Right to Property).

During the pendency of the case, parliament passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which expanded its amending power, especially with the fundamental rights. The central question then shifted from the original property dispute to a larger issue of whether parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution of India. This case revolved around whether parliament can amend the Constitution, especially concerning fundamental rights.

Issues Of the Case

· Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, through Article 368?

· Is there any limitation in amending power under Article 368?

· Are there any essential or "basic features" of the Constitution, that Parliament cannot amend?

· Is there a balance between the rights of individuals and the authority of Parliament to enact laws that affect these rights?

Contentions of the Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati)

· The petitioner submitted that the rights under Article 26 of the Constitution are not merely ordinary laws and Parliament lacks the power to amend or abridge fundamental rights and contended no one can be deprived of religious rights, property, or personal liberty based on a mere law. The 24th and 25th Amendments which abraded Article 31, the property right were also unconstitutional.

· Article 31[1] Included right to the property till its deletion by the 44th Amendment in June of 1978. The petitioner had challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act[2], contending that it abridged his fundamental rights viz., right to property as well as his right to manage religious endowment because there was no saving provision preserving those laws which were subjected to challenge on this account.

· It was held that amending power under Article 368 cannot be unlimited. Basic Structure — While Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it does not have the power to alter its basic. Framework part of Written Constitution- Since this is an essential feature of a written constitution. The petitioner has contended that the basic structure of the Constitution is gleaned from nine principal components based on judicial review, democracy rule of law and federalism are essential to a functioning democracy in India.

· The counsel for Kesavananda argued that the principle of supremacy of the Constitution is part of the basic structure of Indian democracy; any amendment that tampers with this principle should be regarded as unconstitutional.

· The petition contended that the amending powers of Parliament are subject to the Constitution and mean only such as does not damage or affect the basic structure.

Contentions of the Respondent (State of Kerala and the Union of India)

· The State of Kerala & Union of India contended that the power to amend any provision of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights under Article 368 was an absolute and vested in the Parliament without there being any restrictions. They argued that the elected representatives of the people in Parliament cannot have their hands tied by a doctrine that limits how they can amend even constitutional provisions relevant to them.

· The Constitution Committee thought of the view that amendments such as the 24th, and 25 amendments were driven to bring public welfare and social economic justice. They argued that the limitation on Parliament from altering the Constitution would obstruct the passage of needed progressive legislation, particularly social legislation directed at ameliorating inequality and property redistribution. It was contended that since the property right is not a fundamental composition of the Constitution, it could be either amended or deleted as this obstructs the state’s agility in promoting economic justice. For example, the 25th Amendment enacted curbs on the Right to Property — and was justified as a measure taken for land reforms followed by several other measures for the promotion of social equality. They submitted that judicial review is not a basic feature under the Constitution and Parliament can limit it if it finds such measures are necessary for its legislative goals.

· They contended that the judiciary should not overstep its boundary and intervene in legislative action, particularly when Parliament is operating within its amendment realm concerning correcting social injustices.

Judgment

On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court gave its judgment by a majority of seven to six. The Court held:

Article 368[3] Provides wide powers to the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights. The "basic structure" of the Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament, though — both houses must pass the amendment with a two-thirds majority. The Constitution can be changed only till its basic structure remains intact.

Although the Court did not exhaustively enumerate what it considers to be part of the "basic structure," it identified aspects such as the supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, democracy, separation of powers, and the rule of law among what it stated are essential features of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment (which permitted Parliament to amend fundamental rights) was declared constitutional, but the 25th Amendment (curtailing property rights) was scrutinized. The amendment was valid, but its provisions had to be read in line with the "basic structure doctrine."

Comment

Kesavananda Bharati gave the "Basic Structure Doctrine" which later became a bedrock of the Indian constitutional law. At the heart of this doctrine, Parliament does not have unfettered power to amend the Constitution. This is what protects the Constitution, so that no government, regardless of its powers, can violate the core principles on which it was built. Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Review/Constitutional Review The case set a gold standard between Parliamentary Supremacy and judicial review and made provisions against the abuse of power in amending the constitution.

This case is imperative for the safeguarding of Democratic principles and preventing arbitrariness of the state in taking over the fundamental rights of citizens without giving enough room to Parliament to change the constitution for public welfare.

Conclusion

The Keshavananda Bharti case judgment ensures that even if there are constitutional amendments, the constitution's fundamental framework remains untouchable. Through this judgment ‘BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE’ was introduced which states that any part of the constitution can be amended except the basic structure doctrine which is not defined and can be depended upon the facts and circumstances. This doctrine has been invoked in numerous subsequent cases, ensuring the Constitution's resilience over time if there is a need for it and protecting India's democracy and the rights of individuals.

References:

[1] Constitution of India

[2] Institute of land and disaster management_https://ildm.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/1.THE-KERALA-LAND-REFORMS-ACT-1963.pdf accessed on 21/9/24

[3] https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part20.pdf accessed on 21/9/2024