Headline of the Article
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: The Case That Redefined Constitutional Amendments in India
Tuba Majeed Nigudkar
Final year student of BA LLB at Kle College of Law Kalamboli.
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973) is one of the most significant decisions in the history of Indian constitutional law. It marked a turning point in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, and it became a defining moment for the interpretation of the Constitution. The case arose from a challenge against the Kerala government’s land reforms, but its implications went far beyond the issue at hand, reaching deep into the structure of India’s Constitution and the powers of the Parliament.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether the Indian Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including its fundamental principles. The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader from Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to implement land reforms, arguing that they violated his fundamental rights, specifically those related to property under Article 31. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, and it soon evolved into a larger constitutional debate about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Before the Kesavananda Bharati case, the question of whether Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution had already been addressed in earlier cases, notably the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. However, the Golaknath decision was not without its controversies, and many believed that it constrained the ability of the legislature to bring necessary changes to the Constitution. By the time the Kesavananda Bharati case came before the Court, there was a growing debate about the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature, particularly about constitutional amendments.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kesavananda Bharati, delivered by a 13-judge bench, upheld the idea that Parliament did possess the power to amend the Constitution. However, the Court also concluded that certain essential features of the Constitution could not be altered or abrogated, even through the amending process. This became known as the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court ruled that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, it could not alter the “basic structure” or “basic features” of the document. These features included the rule of law, democracy, federalism, separation of powers, and the concept of justice. The doctrine was groundbreaking because it introduced a limitation on the amending power of Parliament, a concept that had not been fully explored before.
This landmark ruling established a clear boundary between the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution and the duty of the judiciary to protect its core principles. The Basic Structure Doctrine has since become a fundamental principle of constitutional law in India, ensuring that the essence of the Constitution remains intact even as it evolves to address contemporary challenges. The Kesavananda Bharati case thus not only resolved the immediate constitutional issues but also set the stage for a new understanding of the relationship between constitutional supremacy, judicial review, and legislative power in India.
The Proof: Facts of the Case
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case revolved around a conflict between the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights, ultimately leading to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Below are the key facts of the case:
- Petitioner: Swami Kesavananda Bharati
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt (a religious institution) in Kerala, was the petitioner in the case. He challenged the Kerala government’s Land Reforms Act, arguing that the Act violated his fundamental rights, particularly under Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property) and Article 31 (Protection of Property Rights). The Act aimed to redistribute land from large landholders to landless individuals, but Kesavananda Bharati contended that it infringed upon his right to hold and manage his property as guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Counsel: Nanabhoy Palkhivala
The case was argued by Nanabhoy Palkhivala, one of India’s most prominent and respected constitutional lawyers. Palkhivala played a pivotal role in presenting the case, emphasizing the fundamental importance of judicial review and the judiciary’s responsibility as the guardian of the Constitution. He argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution should be limited, particularly about the fundamental rights that form the core of the Constitution’s values. Palkhivala’s articulate and powerful defense became a cornerstone of the case, bringing attention to the need for safeguarding the Constitution’s basic structure
- Government’s Standpoint
The government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, defended the Land Reforms Act and argued that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. At the time, the government had already passed several constitutional amendments, including the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments, to limit judicial review and extend Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. These amendments were part of an effort to counter previous Supreme Court decisions that had restricted the scope of Parliament’s amending power, especially concerning property rights. The government’s stance was that Parliament should be able to amend any part of the Constitution to meet the needs of the nation, including curtailing individual rights in certain contexts like land reforms.
- Significance of the Bench
Given the monumental constitutional questions at stake, the Supreme Court constituted the largest-ever bench in Indian judicial history, comprising 13 judges. This decision reflected the gravity of the issues involved, including the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the preservation of fundamental rights. The case required a comprehensive evaluation of the Constitution’s structure, the limits of parliamentary authority, and the role of the judiciary in protecting the core values of the Constitution. The size of the bench underscored the importance of the case in shaping the future of Indian constitutional law.
Background of the Case
Before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature had been tested in several key cases:
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend fundamental rights under Article 368, as constitutional amendments were not considered “laws” under Article 13.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court reaffirmed that Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In a dramatic reversal, the Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This led to the 24th Amendment (1971), which explicitly granted Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
These cases set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution’s core principles.
Analysis of the Case
- Issues Examined
1. Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?
2. Are there any implied limitations on the amending power of Parliament under Article 368?
3. What constitutes the “basic structure” of the Constitution?
4. Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments valid?
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973) resulted in a historic judgment delivered by a 13-judge bench, with a 7:6 majority. The Court’s judgment, spanning 703 pages, addressed several critical constitutional questions regarding the amending power of Parliament and the protection of fundamental rights. The ruling established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The judgment can be broken down into the following key aspects:
1. Basic Structure Doctrine
The most significant outcome of the Kesavananda Bharati case was the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or essential features.
This doctrine was formulated as a safeguard to ensure that the core values of the Constitution remain intact, even as the Constitution evolves through amendments. The basic structure was not explicitly defined in the judgment, but the Court pointed to several principles as being fundamental to the Constitution, including:
- Democracy
- Rule of Law
- Separation of Powers
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Republicanism
The ruling essentially declared that the basic framework of the Constitution, which is necessary to preserve its identity, cannot be altered by Parliament, regardless of the amending process. This marked a clear distinction between the amending power and the core principles that define the Constitution, ensuring that no amendment could completely change or undermine the Constitution’s foundation.
2. Validity of Amendments
The Court also examined the validity of various constitutional amendments that had been passed before the Kesavananda Bharati case. The Court upheld some amendments while partially striking down others:
- 24th Amendment (1971): The 24th Amendment was upheld by the Court, which affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. This amendment was passed to counter the Golaknath case, where the Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The 24th Amendment explicitly granted Parliament the authority to amend any provision of the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights. The Court upheld this amendment, affirming Parliament’s broad power to amend the Constitution.
- 25th Amendment (1971): The 25th Amendment was partially upheld. This amendment sought to curtail judicial review by granting Parliament the power to amend fundamental rights, particularly the right to property under Article 31. While the Court upheld the amendment in part, it struck down clauses that attempted to bar judicial review of constitutional amendments. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review as a check on Parliament’s power and ruled that no amendment could override the judiciary’s power to review whether an amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
- 29th Amendment (1972): The 29th Amendment was upheld by the Court. This amendment inserted Kerala’s land reforms into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which grants immunity from judicial review to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule. The Court upheld the validity of the 29th Amendment, allowing the Kerala government’s land reforms to be protected from judicial scrutiny under the provisions of Article 31 (Right to Property).
3. Significance of Article 368
The judgment further clarified the meaning of Article 368, which deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Court explained that the term “amendment” under Article 368 includes:
- The power to add new provisions to the Constitution.
- The power to modify existing provisions.
- The power to delete provisions.
However, the Court made it clear that the amending power does not extend to the destruction or subversion of the Constitution’s foundational principles. This interpretation of Article 368 was significant because it established a clear limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, ensuring that Parliament could not destroy or undermine the Constitution’s core values through amendments. The judgment marked a shift in the understanding of the amending power, emphasizing that while changes could be made to the Constitution, its essential structure had to remain intact.
4. Impact of the Judgment
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment fundamentally altered the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament regarding constitutional amendments. By establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court placed limits on Parliament’s power, ensuring that certain constitutional principles, like democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers, could not be amended or altered by Parliament, regardless of the political context.
The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, positioning the courts as a check on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It established that any amendment that violates the Constitution’s basic structure could be struck down by the judiciary, ensuring that the Constitution’s fundamental framework remains protected.
Key Opinions of the Judges
The Kesavananda Bharati case saw a wide range of judicial opinions, each contributing to the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Here’s a breakdown of the key judicial views:
1. Chief Justice Sikri’s Opinion
Chief Justice Sikri, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, emphasized that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. He identified several core features of the Constitution that form part of its basic structure, including:
- Democracy
- Secularism
- Federalism
- Separation of Powers
- Supremacy of the Constitution
These principles were seen as foundational to the structure and functioning of the Indian state. According to Chief Justice Sikri, any amendment that undermines these features would be unconstitutional, thus preserving the integrity of the Constitution.
2. Justice Shelat and Justice Grover’s Opinion
Justices Shelat and Grover expanded upon Chief Justice Sikri’s opinion by adding a few more essential features to the list of the Constitution’s basic structure. They included:
- Individual Dignity
- Unity and Integrity of India
They argued that these features are fundamental to the nation’s identity and functioning. The unity of India and the dignity of the individual were seen as intrinsic to the nation’s democratic fabric, Therefore, any constitutional amendment that attempted to alter or undermine these principles would violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. Justice Khanna’s Opinion
Justice Khanna played a pivotal role in shaping the Basic Structure Doctrine by making a significant distinction between Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the limits of that power. While acknowledging that Parliament’s amending power is vast, he emphasized that it is not unlimited. He argued that Parliament’s power under Article 368 allows for Constitutional changes. but must remain within the framework that does not disturb its core or basic structure. This view reinforced the idea that Parliament cannot have arbitrary power to change the foundational principles that underpin the entire constitutional system.
Case Laws Referred
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of fundamental rights amendments. It ruled that Parliament could amend fundamental rights under Article 368, as amendments were not considered “laws” under Article 13.
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance, asserting that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights. It held that fundamental rights were beyond the Parliament’s amending power, significantly limiting constitutional amendments.
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 24th and 39th Amendments that violated principles of democracy and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that amendments should not violate the Constitution’s core values.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, declaring that certain parts of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to expand Parliament’s powers, were unconstitutional because they violated the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, a critical aspect of the basic structure.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, balanced constitutional flexibility with the protection of democratic values. The judgment remains a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the Constitution against arbitrary amendments, preserving its sanctity for future generations.
FAQ
1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
It is a judicial principle that Parliament cannot amend certain fundamental features of the Constitution.
2. Why is the Kesavananda Bharati case significant?
It introduced limits on Parliament’s amending powers, protecting the Constitution’s core principles.
3. What features are part of the basic structure?
Democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and the rule of law are among the identified features.
4. How did the judgment impact Indian democracy?
It safeguarded democratic values and ensured judicial oversight over constitutional amendments.