Author: Aditya Bhardwaj, Law College Dehradun
To the Point
The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is one of the most celebrated judgments in Indian constitutional law. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the Parliament cannot alter the fundamental essence of the Constitution through amendments. This judgment acts as a bulwark against unconstitutional legislative overreach and preserves the supremacy of the Constitution.
Use of Legal Jargon
– Constitutional Amendment: A modification of the Constitution’s provisions through Article 368.
– Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
– Doctrine of Basic Structure: A judicial principle limiting Parliament’s amending power to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
– Article 368: Provision outlining the amendment procedure for the Constitution.
The Proof
The case arose when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt, challenged the Kerala government’s land reform laws, claiming they violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 25, and 31 of the Indian Constitution. During this challenge, the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 came under scrutiny.
The Supreme Court, in a 13-judge bench ruling, held that while Parliament has extensive amending powers, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This judgment safeguarded key constitutional principles, including:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Separation of Powers
3. Fundamental Rights
Abstract
– Facts: The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, was enacted to redistribute land for equitable socio-economic justice. Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Act, arguing it infringed on his fundamental rights as a property owner.
– Issues: Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 is absolute or subject to limitations.
– Argument’s:
– Petitioners: Contended that unlimited amending power would destroy the Constitution’s essence.
– Respondents: Argued that the will of Parliament, as a democratic institution, should prevail.
– Judgment: The Court upheld the 24th Amendment (giving Parliament the power to amend fundamental rights) but struck down amendments that violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
Case Laws
1. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
– Held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, later overruled in Kesavananda Bharati.
2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
– Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and invalidated amendments that diluted the Constitution’s essential features.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
– Struck down an amendment curtailing judicial review, citing the basic structure doctrine.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, balancing legislative supremacy and constitutional sanctity. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, it ensures that the Constitution remains an enduring document, safeguarding the rights and liberties of citizens against arbitrary amendments.
FAQS
1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by protecting its fundamental features, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence.
2. Why is Kesavananda Bharati’s case important?
This case defined the scope of Parliament’s amending power and established the principle that the Constitution’s core cannot be altered, preserving its integrity.
3. How many judges were involved in this case?
A 13-judge bench delivered the judgment, the largest bench in Indian judicial history.