Author: Thaarani S, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology
ABSTRACT
This blog marks the 50th anniversary of the landmark legal verdict in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, which solidified the Basic Structure Doctrine in the constitutional framework of India. This blog delves into the profound significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial principle that emerged as a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law. The analysis is conducted in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the landmark judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a case that fundamentally shaped the constitutional landscape of India. The Basic Structure Doctrine, as propounded by the Supreme Court in this case, posits certain essential features of the Constitution as immune to amendment, safeguarding the core values and principles enshrined in the constitutional framework. Through an examination of the historical context, legal intricacies, and the far-reaching implications of this doctrine, this blog aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of its enduring impact on constitutional jurisprudence. It delves into the historical context leading to the judgement, highlighting the constitutional crisis and the consequent necessity of establishing limitations on the amending power of the Parliament. Furthermore, it explores the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine over the past five decades, analysing subsequent judicial interpretations and its influence on constitutional governance. By reflecting on the legacy of Kesavananda Bharati and the enduring relevance of the Basic Structure Doctrine, this blog seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on constitutional law and the evolving nature of democratic governance. Furthermore, It examines how this doctrine has acted as a bulwark, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution while maintaining a delicate balance between the three pillars of democracy.
INTRODUCTION
Fifty years have passed since the monumental judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a case that etched its place in legal history by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine in India. This doctrine, elucidated by the Supreme Court, laid down fundamental principles regarding the immutable core of the Indian Constitution. The landmark judgement was delivered by the largest constitutional bench in the Indian judicial history up until today, consisting of thirteen justices who severed the judgement which “saved the Indian democracy” from falling apart. The judges sitting consisted of S. M. Sikri (Chief Justice of India), A.N. Ray (Justice), J.M. Shelat (Justice), K.S. Hegde (Justice), A.K. Mukherjea (Justice), J.M. Shelat (Justice), A.N. Grover (Justice), P. Jaganmohan Reddy (Justice), H.R. Khanna (Justice), A.N. Ray (Justice), D.G. Palekar (Justice), K.K. Mathew (Justice) and Y.V. Chandrachud (Justice). This case plays a pivotal role in the constitutional jurisprudence of India as the longest case heard by a bench, lasting for over 68 working days for the judgement to be pronounced. Further, the judgement partially overruled the judgement of Golaknath v. State of Punjab , which held that parliament does not possess the right to amend fundamental rights enshrined in part three of the constitution, thereby making any such amendments invalid. In Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., this was overruled wherein it was held that the parliament can make amendments to the fundamental rights as long as it did not violate the basic structure doctrine.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT LEADING TO THIS JUDGEMENT
In early 1951, the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the chief ministers of all the states that “It is impossible to hand up urgent social changes because the Constitution comes in the way, We shall have to find a remedy, even though this might involve a change in the Constitution.” marking the beginning of the journey of constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendments is a borrowed concept from. The procedure for constitutional amendments is primarily outlined in Articles 368, 370, and 13. Article 368, specifically dealing with the powers of the parliament to amend and change the Indian Constitution. The first ever amendment of Indian constitution was passed just a year and half after the enactment and adoption of the Indian constitution on June 18, 1951. Which imposed certain restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression to prevent challenges to legislation that aimed at curtailing the concentration of wealth and the abolition of the zamindari system. This was subsequently challenged in two case laws namely Shankari Prasad Deo V. Union of India and Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan. Both of the cases challenged the power of the parliament to amend any part of the constitution, including the fundamental rights. The court upheld the parliament’s power under article 368. Later, these judgements were overruled by the judgement pronounced in the Golaknath case, which limited the powers of the parliament to amend the fundamental rights. It was firmly believed that India, as the largest democracy, must protect the fundamental rights of the citizens from being abrogated. Finally, the back and forth judgements regarding constitutional amendments and the power of the parliament came to an end with the filing of Kesavananda Bharati case, also known as the fundamental rights case.
BACKGROUND OF KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERALA
Serving as the most cited case in the Indian constitutional law, this case initially was with regards to the land reforms in Kerala which took away some parcels of land from the petitioner, His Holiness Sripadavalguru Kesavanand Bharati. He was a chief of a religious sect- Hindu monastery ‘Edneer Mutt’, Kasaragod District, Kerala. In 1963, the Kerala government enacted the Kerala Land Reforms Act, setting a ceiling on individual land holdings. This legislation facilitated the acquisition of surplus land from landowners and its redistribution to those without land and individuals in need. Additionally, in 1970, the Government of Kerala imposed limitations on land ownership by religious institutions. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Kerala land reforms act, 1963 in the High Court of Kerala which then reached the Supreme Court of India. This case entailed several complexities with regards to the Constitution and its amendment, parliamentary power and Article 368.When the petition was up for consideration, the Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. The petition in SC was filed under Article 32 for enforcement of his fundamental rights (Art. 25, 14, 19(1) (f), and 31). The following were challenged in the petition.
1. Article 25: Right to practise & propagate religion
2. Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
3. Article 14: Right to equality
4. Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
5. Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
Alongside the amendment act of Kerala land reforms. Kesavananda Bharati further challenged the 24th, 25th and the 29th amendment of the constitution. The problem with the 24th and 25th amendments was that it almost altered the basic structure of the Indian “Supreme law of the land”. The 24th Amendment Act empowered the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, even if fundamental rights are curbed because of tithe 25th Amendment Act took away the essence of right to property of citizens i.e., The Right to property enlisted as a fundamental right was repealed by the parliament. Further, it prohibited the power of the Indian judiciary. Article 26 discussed the management of religious institutions without the interference of the government. This was violated by the Kerala land reforms act and its amendment subsequently. The 29th amendment act of the constitution introduced Kerala Land Reforms under the IX schedule of the Indian constitution.
ARTICLE 368 AND PARLIAMENTARY POWERS
Justice J.R. Mudholkar, in his dissent – Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, put forth a curious entailment with regards to the position of article 368 within the Indian legal system, stating “It is additionally a matter for consideration whether making a change in an exceedingly basic feature of the Constitution are often regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a section of the Constitution; and if the latter, wouldn’t it be within the purview of Article 368?”
Article 368 of Our Constitution entrusts powers into the hands of parliament to amend and make changes to the supreme law of our land, the constitution. There has been a heavy debate with regards to the term “amend” contained in the article 368. However, there has been a contradiction with regards to the power of parliament to make changes to Part III of the Indian Constitution as article 13(2) reads “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part (i.e. Part-III) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void.“ Many were of the view that entrusting powers to the parliament to amend fundamental rights might lead to destruction of Indian democracy and its essence. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati, it was argued that Parliament is created by the Constitution and the power to amend is by virtue of the Constitution. Further, it was contented that article 368 is only a source of amending power and should not be viewed as a constituent power to go ahead with distortion/ destruction of the constitution’s essential identity. The majority in the judgement were of the view that the powers of the parliament has to be defined within the scope of constituent law. It was held that fundamental rights’ are amendable as decided by the Court but they cannot be amended at the cost of bruising the ‘basic structure’. The simple overview of this judgement is that although the Parliament possesses extensive powers, it lacks the authority to dismantle or weaken the fundamental elements or essential features of the constitution i.e. The basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
The basic structure doctrine is considered to be an element which upholds constitutional integrity. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case stands as a monumental moment in the annals of Indian constitutional law. This watershed judgement, delivered with a close 7-6 majority, fortified the bedrock of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The doctrine established that while the Constitution was amenable to amendments, there existed an inherent framework of essential principles and values, constituting its basic structure. This framework acted as a safeguard against arbitrary alterations, ensuring the sanctity of constitutional ethos and preventing the undermining of fundamental constitutional features. The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case stands as a monumental moment in the annals of Indian constitutional law. This watershed judgement, delivered with a close 7-6 majority, fortified the bedrock of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The doctrine established that while the Constitution was amenable to amendments, there existed an inherent framework of essential principles and values, constituting its basic structure. This framework acted as a safeguard against arbitrary alterations, ensuring the sanctity of constitutional ethos and preventing the undermining of fundamental constitutional features. The court’s decision fundamentally centred on the notion that certain amendments, if infringing upon the foundational structure of the constitution, could be struck down. The doctrine of implied limitations, advocated by Professor Conrad and propelled into legal discourse by M.K. Nambiar, heralded a pivotal shift. While only a minority of six judges supported the view that fundamental rights could not be amended, the broader notion of implied limitations gained precedence in the judicial discourse.
The Supreme Court, in its judgement, delineated the validity of constitutional amendments. While it upheld the entirety of the 24th Constitutional Amendment, it deemed the second part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment ultra vires. The pivotal ruling centred on the unconstitutional nature of Article 31C, emphasising the inviolability of judicial review as a fundamental aspect of the constitutional framework. Despite reaffirming Parliament’s inability to infringe upon fundamental rights, the Court surprisingly upheld an amendment removing the right to property, reasoning that it didn’t compromise the Constitution’s basic structure. The genesis of the basic structure doctrine can be traced to the German Constitution, post the Nazi era, which introduced limits on parliamentary powers over certain ‘basic law’ elements. Echoing this spirit, the Court established that any constitutional amendment would face scrutiny based on the concept of the basic structure. The validation of the 25th Amendment hinged on two key conditions: while recognizing the disparity between ‘amount’ and ‘compensation,’ the Court stipulated that the sum provided by the government to landlords should be reasonable, though not necessarily equivalent to market value. The first part of the 25th Amendment stood, contingent upon nullifying the curtailment of judicial oversight. The Amendment’s replacement of ‘compensation’ with ‘amount’ in Article 31(2) aimed to clarify Parliament’s freedom from the obligation to adequately compensate landlords for property acquisition by the State Government.
Nani Palkhivala’s astute argument during the proceedings underscored the gravity of the situation. He emphasised that even within the purview of Article 368, the constitution’s preamble and the inherent spirit of the Constitution were beyond amendment. Palkhivala poignantly remarked that Article 368 should not be construed as a provision for the legal suicide of the Constitution.Justice Khanna’s profound articulation of the majority view resonated deeply, cementing the concept of the ‘basic structure’ within legal discourse. His ruling positioned the ‘basic structure’ as an inviolable aspect of the Constitution, comprising democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law. This set a precedent, denying Parliament the authority to tamper with these foundational elements, thereby curtailing arbitrary amendments that could compromise the core essence of the Constitution.Justice Sikri’s assertion that the power to ‘amend’ the Constitution did not entail the authority to destroy its very identity or dilute fundamental rights epitomised the essence of the judgement. The judgement underscored the significance of the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine, delineating clear boundaries for the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The enduring legacy of Kesavananda Bharati’s case reverberates through time. It ensured that the Constitution remains a living document, adaptable yet fortified against arbitrary modifications that could undermine its foundational principles. This ruling has stood as a vigilant check on the powers of Parliament, fostering a constitutional environment where the fundamental fabric of the Constitution remains preserved and protected. In conclusion, the Kesavananda Bharati case marked a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It not only upheld the sanctity of the Basic Structure Doctrine but also fortified the Constitution against capricious amendments. This judgement remains a guiding beacon, ensuring that the Constitution evolves while preserving its foundational ethos, standing as a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the essence of democracy and justice in India. The basic structure doctrine was reaffirmed by the judiciary in the case of Minerva Mills and later in the Waman Rao case, 1981.This judgement resolved the clash between the executive and the judiciary, acting as a safeguard for the democratic system and establishing stability in the nation. The judgement of Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala was pronounced on 24 april, 1973.
FAQS
- Why is Kesavananda Bharati V State of Kerala so famous?
Serving as the most cited case in the Indian constitutional law, this case is famous for establishing the Doctrine of Basic Structure which prohibits the parliament from exercising its right to amend certain parts of the constitution. These parts are quoted as the “basic structure” of the Indian constitution which provides the essence of constitutional law framed by the Constituent Assembly.
- What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine, as propounded by the Supreme Court in this case, posits certain essential features of the Constitution as immune to amendment, safeguarding the core values and principles enshrined in the constitutional framework. In Simple words, certain parts of the constitution cannot be amended by the parliament under the basic structure doctrine.
- What is one unique feature about the Kesavananda Bharati case?
This case is yet to be overruled by the Indian Judiciary. One Unique feature of this case is that it was ruled out by the largest constitutional bench in Indian History – A Bench consisting of thirteen judges namely S. M. Sikri (Chief Justice of India), A.N. Ray (Justice), J.M. Shelat (Justice), K.S. Hegde (Justice), A.K. Mukherjea (Justice), J.M. Shelat (Justice), A.N. Grover (Justice), P. Jaganmohan Reddy (Justice), H.R. Khanna (Justice), A.N. Ray (Justice), D.G. Palekar (Justice), K.K. Mathew (Justice) and Y.V. Chandrachud (Justice).
