Author: Sohan Bhaskar Gawade, Shahaji Law College
CASE NO. :
Writ Petition (civil) 135 of 1970
PETITIONER:
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors
RESPONDENT:
State of Kerala and Anr
CITATION:
AIR 1973 SC 1461, 1973 4 SCC 22
BENCH:
Sikri, C. J., A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar, H. R. Khanna, J. M. Shelat, K. K. Mathew, K. S. Hegde, M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S. N. Dwivedi, Y. V. Chandrachud
MAJORITY:
Chief Justice Sikri, Justices Hegde, Mukherjea, Shelat, Grover, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna.
DISSENT:
Justices Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, and justice Chandrachud.
Introduction
The Kesavananda Bharati case . It is considered one of the most landmark rulings in the history of the Indian judiciary.This landmark judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India, established the basic structure doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed through constitutional amendments. The case, also referred to as the Fundamental Rights Case, arose from a challenge to constitutional amendments that were perceived to threaten the core principles of the Constitution. In a closely contested 7-6 decision, the Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot change or destroy its basic structure. This decision has since been a cornerstone in safeguarding the integrity and core values of the Constitution.
Background
The cases of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, Sri Sankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India and State of Bihar, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, and I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anrs.stand as significant milestones in the evolution of Indian constitutional law, each playing a vital role in shaping its interpretation.
In A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of preventive detention laws. The Court upheld these laws, ruling that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including the right to life and personal liberty, were not absolute and could be restricted by the state in the interest of national security.
In Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951), the Court examined the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It affirmed that Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was expansive and unrestrained, and that no constitutional amendment could be invalidated simply because it violated fundamental rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) concerned the validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment. The Court upheld the Amendment, emphasizing that Parliament had the power To modify any section of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.The judgment also observed that if the framers of the Constitution had intended to limit this power, they would have explicitly stated so.
In I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anrs. (1967), the Supreme Court marked a significant shift by ruling that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not absolute. The Court held that Parliament could not abridge or nullify the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution through constitutional amendments.
Together, these landmark cases helped define the delicate balance between the protection of fundamental rights and the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. They set important precedents, laying the groundwork for subsequent decisions, particularly Kesavananda Bharati , which would go on to have a profound and lasting impact on the Indian legal landscape.
Facts of case
The primary petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, was the head of the Edneer Mutt religious sect in Kerala. He held ownership of certain land areas belonging to the sect. Disputes arose between the state government and the sect members regarding the ownership of these lands. To resolve these issues, the Kerala state government introduced the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1969, which granted the government the authority to seize portions of the land owned by the sect.
Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, claiming that his fundamental rights had been violated. Specifically, he argued that his rights under Articles 25 (Right to practice and propagate religion), The infringement of Articles 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), 14 (Right to Equality), 31 (Compulsory acquisition of property), and 19(1)(f) (Freedom to acquire property) was alleged.
While the case was still pending, the Kerala government introduced another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1971. At the same time, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case led to significant constitutional amendments, including the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971, which affirmed that Parliament had the authority to amend the provisions of the Constitution. The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act further specified that if the state government acquired private property, it was not obligated to provide equal compensation to the owner.
Issues before the Court
1.The constitutional validity of the-
24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972
2. The scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
3. The central question was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limitless. Specifically, could Parliament alter, amend, or even revoke any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, without restriction?
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader and landowner, contended that the Kerala Land Reforms Act infringed upon his fundamental right to property, which was protected by the Indian Constitution. He further argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not absolute, and that certain core principles, such as the right to property, should be immune from amendment.
– Written Arguments: Petitioner’s formal petition
– Affidavit of the Petitioner
– Petitioner’s propositions
– Common Submission by Petitioners & Intervenors
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State of Kerala, defending the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, It was argued that the Act represented a reasonable limitation on the right to property.It claimed the law was necessary for promoting social justice and reducing poverty. The State further contended that Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution was unrestricted and that no constitutional boundaries existed for this power.
– Written Arguments – Union of India
– Submissions – Union of India
– Examination of Respondent’s Arguments
Intervenors’ Arguments:
Various intervenors participated in the case, supporting different aspects of the arguments. Some intervenors defended the Kerala Land Reforms Act, emphasizing its importance for social justice and poverty alleviation. Others argued that the Act violated the fundamental right to property. Additionally, some intervenors took the stance that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, contending that certain essential features, such as the independence of the judiciary, should remain beyond the scope of amendments.
Judgment:
In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution, but placed important limitations through the basic structure doctrine and reinforced the principle of judicial review. The judgment, delivered by a narrow 7:6 majority, laid down several key principles:
1. Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution:The Court affirmed that Parliament possesses the power to amend the Constitution; however, this power is not without limits. Parliament cannot alter or abolish the fundamental elements that form the Constitution’s *basic structure*.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court established that certain essential features, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, federalism, andFundamental rights form an essential part of the basic structure.These features are beyond Parliament’s power to amend.
3. Judicial Review:The Court reaffirmed its authority to review constitutional amendments. It was determined that any amendment that infringes upon the basic structure of the Constitution would be considered unconstitutional.
4. Constitutionality of Amendments:The Court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA), which clarified Parliament’s amending power. However, it found certain provisions of the 25th CAA unconstitutional, particularly those that undermined the principle of judicial review.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution contains certain fundamental principles that constitute its ‘basic structure.’ These principles are so essential that they cannot be altered or amended by Parliament.On 24th April 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment introducing the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine asserts that certain provisions of theThe principles enshrined in the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be altered through amendment. The Court overruled the Golaknath case, affirming that while Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, such amendments must not violate the Constitution’s basic structure, or they would be deemed unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court outlined several key features that constitute the basic structureof the Constitution, including:
Case laws
1.Free and Fair Elections
The Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case affirmed that elections must be free and fair, without manipulation, to ensure that the people’s will is accurately reflected. It underscored the importance of election integrity as a foundational principle of democracy.
2.Democracy
In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the anti-defection law, balancing individual legislators’ freedom to dissent with the need for government stability, emphasizing the importance of accountability and preventing political defections to protect democratic institutions.
3.Equality of Status and Opportunity
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (2000) clarified that equality includes ensuring equal opportunities, particularly through affirmative action. The Court upheld reservations for backward classes while imposing a 50% cap, highlighting that equal treatment may require special provisions for disadvantaged groups.
4.FR and DPSP
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), the Court harmonized Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, emphasizing that both must work together to ensurustice and equity. It struck down provisions that undermined judicial review, reinforcing the balance between rights and social justice.
FAQS
Q1. What was the outcome of the Kesavananda Bharati case?
Ans- The Kesvananda Bharati case (1973) is a landmark judgment that established the basic structure doctrine. The SC ruled that while Parliament has a poweo amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental framework, which includes essential principles like the rule of law, democracy, federalism, and fundamental rights.
Q2. Which is the second-longest case in the Supreme Court of India?
Ans- The Kesavananda Bharati case holds the distinction of being the second-longest case in the history of the Supreme Court of India, with hearings lasting for 68 days.
Q3. What was the significance of the basic structure doctrine?
Ans- The basic structure doctrine, established in this case, prevents any constitutional amendments that would alter the core principles or essential features of the Indian Constitution. This ruling ensures that the fundamental values embedded in the Constitution remain intact and protected from arbitrary changes.
Q4. Did the Court approve all constitutional amendments during the case?
Ans- No, the Court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which clarified Parliament’s amending power. However, it struck down certain provisions of the 25th Constitutional Amendment, particularly those that curbed the power of judicial review.
Q5. Who were the key parties involved in the Kesavananda Bharati case?
Ans- The key petitioner in the case was Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious sect in Kerala. The respondents included the State of Kerala, which had introduced land reforms that were challenged by Bharati as violations of his fundamental rights.
