Author: Siddhika Chaudhary, Lloyd Law College
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important landmark judgement in the history of Constitutional Law is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This judgment resulted in the establishment of Basic Structure Doctrine causing the limitation of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This doctrine ensures that certain fundamental principles that are not up for alterations, even if there are any constitutional amendments. Some of these rights are:
democracy,
secularism,
the rule of law
The case prevents the potential misuse of power by balancing Parliamentary supremacy with constitutional integrity. The judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973 and upheld that no doubt Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but it cannot amend or change its basic structure. This ruling struck a balance between:
Parliamentary sovereignty (right to amend)
Judicial review (protection of fundamental rights)
Constitutional supremacy (ensuring democracy remains intact)
This judgement gave birth to Basic Structure Doctrine which prevented any ruling government from distorting the Constitution for political gains and self-interests.
CASE BRIEF
Facts: Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of Edneer Mutt situated in the state of Kerala. He challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which sought to acquire and redistribute religious institution lands. He invoked Article 26 which is freedom to manage religious affairs and Article 31 laying provisions for right to property. He claimed that the Act violated his fundamental rights. During this case, the area of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 became the central issue. This case was heard by a 13-judge bench which is known to be the largest in Supreme Court’s history.
Issues Raised:
Does Parliament have unlimited power under Article 368?
Can fundamental rights be amended or removed?
What is the role of the judiciary in constitutional amendments?
Case Laws Referenced:
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 458
• Government introduced The First Amendment Act, 1951 which restricted the right to property and placed certain laws under the Ninth Schedule. It made them immune from judicial review. Shankari Prasad challenged the argument and argued that this law violates the Fundamental rights under Part III of the constitution
• The issue raised was can Fundamental Rights be amended under Article 368 of the Constitution of India
• The Supreme Court said that Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and rules that “law” under Article 13 refers to only ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendments.
• This judgment is responsible for establishment of Parliament’s supremacy in amending the constitution and allowing the curtailment of fundamental rights. This judgement was overruled in Golaknath v State of Punjab
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Citation: AIR 1965 SC 845
• The main purpose of the 17th Constitutional Amendment (1964) was to place more land reform laws under the Ninth Schedule which would prevent them from being challenged in courts. Sajjan Singh argued that this particular amendment violated Fundamental Right i.e. Right to Property.
• Issue raised was if Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 or not?
• The Supreme Court upheld the Shankari Prasad ruling, and stated that Parliament has unrestricted power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and it ruled that Fundamental Rights can be altered or amended through constitutional amendments.
• This This judgement was dissented by Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar. They questioned whether there should be limitations on the power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights or not. These causes later influenced the ruling in Golaknath v State of Punjab.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1643
• Henry Golaknath’s family challenged The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which imposed land ceiling laws. They claimed that it violated their fundamental right to property under Article 19 and Article 31.
• The main issue raised was if Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 or not?
• The Supreme Court overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh and held that Parliament can’t amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. The court said that the said Article doesn’t give absolute power to the Parliament to amend the constitution but provides the procedure for amendment only. It also stated that any amendment which would affect the Fundamental Rights would be considered “law” under Article 13(2) and would be subject to judicial review.
• This ruling put restrictions on the power of Parliament by stating that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and cannot be amended. However this judgement was later overruled in Keshavanand Bharati v State of Kerala.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
• In the 1971 Lok Sabha elections, Raj Narain who was a political opponent of Indira Gandhi, filed a case alleging electoral malpractices during 1971 Lok Sabha elections. Indira Gandhi was found guilty of misusing government machinery and the Allahabad High Court declared her election void. The 39th Constitutional Amendment was passed to counter this. The amendment made election disputes involving the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
• The main issue was can Parliament pass laws that place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny?
• The Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment, by stating that it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution i.e. particularly democracy and free elections. The Court held that laws can’t grant special privileges to individuals in a manner that undermines democratic principles.
• This judgement ensured that the election remains free, fair and subject to judicial review. This case marked an important check on authoritarian rule during the emergency of 1995- 1977.
Judgement: The 13-judge bench delivered a split decision (7:6). The majority ruled that Parliament does have the power to amend the Constitution which includes Fundamental Rights but this power is not unlimited that means Parliament cannot make those amendments that effects the basic structure of the Constitution i.e. the basic essence of constitution. The court did not explicitly defines “basic structure” explicitly, but it includes Supremacy of the Constitution, Republican and democratic form of government, Secular character of the Constitution, Separation of powers between different organs of government, Federalism and Unity and integrity of the nation.
CONCLUSION
It was concluded that Parliament does not have unlimited power under Article 368 and it is subjected to basic structure limitations. It also ruled that fundamental rights can be removed as well as can be amended but on a condition that the basic structure of the constitution remains intact. The case also discussed the role of judiciary any constitutional amendments i.e. the Supreme Court plays a role of guardian of the Constitution and can review amendments
FAQS
Q.1. What was Kerala Land Reforms Act?
A.1. The Kerala government introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969, which allowed the government to acquire land owned by the Edneer Mutt, of which Kesavananda Bharati was the head.
Q 2. What is the meaning of basic structure doctrine?
A.2. It means that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, like democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, cannot be amended or destroyed by Parliament.
Q.3. Can Preamble be amended?
A.3. It has been clarified by the Supreme Court that being a part of the Constitution, the Preamble can be subjected to Constitutional Amendments exercised under Article 368, however, the basic structure cannot be altered. Therefore it is considered as the heart and soul of the Constitution.
Q.4. Which judgement was ruled in Keshavanand Bharati v State of Kerala case?
A.4. Golaknath v State of Punjab
