Author: Dibya Lipsa Maharana, B.A.LL.B.(Hons.), KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
To the Point
The leader of Kerala’s Edneer Mutt, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the legitimacy of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which aimed to limit land ownership and management, including those of religious organizations. Under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19(1)(f) (right to property), 25 and 26 (religious freedom), and 31 (compulsory purchase of property), Bharati argued that the Act infringed upon his fundamental rights. The 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which increased Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, were passed while the case was pending. The fundamental legal question that emerged was whether Parliament had the unlimited authority to change any provision of the Constitution or if there were built-in restrictions, especially with regard to the basic structure of the document. The petitioner contended that some essential aspects of the Constitution were safe from alteration, while the government contended that Parliament’s modifying authority was unrestricted by Article 368. One of the most significant constitutional rulings in Indian legal history resulted from this.
Abstract
A 13-judge Supreme Court panel delivered a decision in the 1973 case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which is considered a constitutional landmark in Indian legal history. It started when Keralan religious leader Kesavananda Bharati opposed the Kerala Land Reforms Act, claiming it infringed upon his fundamental rights. The case’s scope grew during the proceedings to include an examination of the constitutionality of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which gave Parliament the authority to change any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights clause. The main question was whether Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution under Article 368 was subject to any restrictions. By a majority vote of 7:6, the Supreme Court decided that although Parliament has broad authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot change or eliminate its fundamental framework. This led to the creation of the Fundamental Structure Doctrine, which maintains that some essential elements are inherent, including the Constitution’s priority, federalism, secularism, and judicial review. Since then, this theory has protected the Constitution’s core principles and the balance of power from inappropriate constitutional modifications. Thus, the Kesavananda Bharati ruling continues to be a pillar of Indian constitutional law.
Use of Legal Jargon
The matter fell under the Court’s original jurisdiction when the petitioner challenged state conduct that violated his fundamental rights by using the Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32. The interpretation of Article 368, which gives Parliament the power to modify the Constitution, was at the heart of the issue. The Basic Structure Doctrine was created as a result of the Court’s ruling that this authority is not unqualified and is subject to implied restrictions. The Court ruled that an amendment is unlawful and, as a result, illegal if it destroys or harms the fundamental elements of the Constitution. The unamendable core was acknowledged to include legal principles including independence, religious freedom, hearings, and the separation of powers. Although Parliament can make changes to the Constitution, it cannot abolish or alter its fundamental provisions, according to the majority judgment (7:6). However, the opposing opinion maintained the parliamentary powers of Parliament. This decision ensured that constitutional changes continue to be subject to judicial review by establishing a binding precedent and confirming the Constitution’s priority over legislative action.
The Proof
In this landmark case, a 13-judge Supreme Court panel decided by a small 7:6 majority that while Parliament has broad authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it is not allowed to change or eliminate its fundamental framework. Known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, this idea was established as legally enforceable and has been consistently maintained in later judgments. The ruling analyzed and limited the reach of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, concluding that no body, including Parliament, could use the amending power to weaken fundamental constitutional principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, judicial review, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. The majority opinion’s approval of these restrictions, which will be recognized in subsequent constitutional cases, is certainly evidence that the Constitution is not completely subject to legislative will, maintaining its fundamental character.
Case Laws
- Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): A socialist leader named Raj Narain, who lost the 1971 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli, petitioned the Allahabad High Court, alleging that then-prime minister Indira Gandhi had engaged in electoral malpractices in violation of the Representation of the People Act of 1951. In a landmark decision on June 12, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found Indira Gandhi guilty of abusing the government’s systems and ruled that her election was invalid, preventing her from serving in elected office for six years. Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India on June 25, 1975, suspending human rights and restricting freedom of speech as a result of this action, thus triggering off a political crisis. The Supreme Court granted a temporary suspension after she challenged the decision, but the political impact had already altered Indian democracy. In addition to its legal consequences, this case is significant because it directly related to the declaration of Emergency, which was a milestone in India’s democratic and constitutional development.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which granted Parliament unrestricted authority to change any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, was contested in this case. By raising Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights and reducing judicial review, the petitioners—among them Minerva Mills—argued that Sections 4 and 55 of the amendment went against the fundamental framework of the Constitution. A five-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud ruled that Parliament cannot demolish or change this fundamental framework because the restricted amending power is a component of it. The Court underlined that there must be compatibility between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights and rejected the clauses that aimed at eliminating all restrictions on Parliament’s amending authority. This case strengthened the balance between individual liberty and democratic governance by confirming the Constitution’s supremacy and the judiciary’s duty as its defender.
Conclusion
By a majority vote of 7:6, the Supreme Court decided that although Parliament has broad authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot change or eliminate its fundamental elements, which include the rule of law, the separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights. This ruling guaranteed that fundamental constitutional principles will always be unaffected by legislative or executive action, upholding the Constitution’s supremacy over temporary political majorities. It consequently became a key ruling in preserving the balance between constitutional flexibility and integrity, securing judicial review, and defending India’s democracy.
FAQS
- Who was Kesavananda Bharati?
Kesavananda Bharati was the leader of the Keralan Hindu monastery known as the Edneer Mutt. In order to prevent the government from acquiring the Mutt’s property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, he filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- What is the Kesavananda Bharati case about?
The case questioned the constitutionality of the Parliament’s property rights-restricting amendments. It raised concerns about Parliament’s unrestricted ability to change the Constitution.
- What is the “Basic Structure Doctrine”?
Parliament may amend the Constitution, but it cannot change or eliminate its fundamental elements, including democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights, secularism, and judicial review, according to the Basic Structure Doctrine established in this case.
