Author: Sunil Kumar Sharma, Rabindranath Tagore University Bhopal
Abstract
In this case we will know about the landmark case law of India which is change the parliament power or Limit the amendment power. And also know what was the case of Kesavananda Bharati, and what was the amendment in this case. And shall why limit the parliament power according the case. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973): Summary, The Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala case is a landmark case in the history of the Indian Constitution. The case arose from a petition filed by Swami Kesavananda Bharati against the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969, which also subjected religious institutions to land acquisition. Swami Kesavananda claimed that the law violated his fundamental rights, including the right to property (Article 19(1)(f)), the right to equality (Article 14), and the right to practice religion and manage religious institutions (Articles 25 and 26). The government argued that under Article 368, Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, even if it was a fundamental right. The controversy led to a debate on the amending powers of Parliament and the “basic structure” of the Constitution. A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the case and established the “basic structure doctrine”. This doctrine gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, but prevents it from destroying the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The court ruled that the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were partially valid. The decision protected the basic structure and democratic values of the Indian Constitution and established judicial oversight over the powers of Parliament. After enforcement of constitution parliament make a Acquisition act, which by this act government can acquire any property related to person who has much property. We know that after enforcement of this constitution Right to property was our fundamental rights but after this case right to property remove from fundamental right and add in article 300 of constitution include in chapter 4, it means right to property is not a fundamental rights. Lets start this article. In constitution given a article about to compulsory acquisition of property “Repealed by the constitution (44th amendment) act 1978”
Fact of this case
The main petitioner Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a religious sect of Edneer Math in Kerala. The sect had certain lands in the name of Kesavananda Bharati. There were some disputes between the state government and the members of the sect regarding the ownership of these lands. The state government of Kerala introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969, under which the state government had the right to take certain portions of the land related to the case. And the government forcibly acquired someone’s property, he felt that our constitutional rights were violated for which he had to file a petition. Kesavananda Bharati approached the Supreme Court for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs), Article 14 (right to equality), Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property) and Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. While the case was still pending in the court, the Kerala government passed another act called the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. In the case of Golaknath vs State of Punjab, Some amendments were made like the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 which states that the Parliament has the power to amend the provisions of the Constitution. The 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act states that if the state government takes over private property then it is not the responsibility of the state to pay equitable compensation to the owner. and the 29th (Amendment) was also introduced.
Issue
Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment, 25th Constitutional Amendment and 29th Constitutional Amendment have any constitutional validity?
Whether Can the Parliament amend the Constitution or not?
Judgment
In the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, the Supreme Court consisting of 13 judges held that the Parliament has the power to change the provision of the Constitution but it cannot change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The majority bench held that the basic structure of the Constitution, i.e. the actual essence of the Constitution, can be changed by the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the 24th Amendment Act was upheld by the Court in its entirety and two parts of the 25th Amendment were found to be extreme and internal. However, there are many cases before this in which it has already been decided that the Parliament can amend any provision, or make a new law and at the same time it was also said that such a law can override any other law which does not affect it. It was said in two cases,
There are two cases ?
Shakri Prasad v. state of bihar 1951 – In this case, there was a person named Shankari Prasad who was a big landowner in Bihar and when the Property Acquisition Act was made by the Parliament, he was the first to raise his voice and said that the Parliament has no right to make such a law and violate our fundamental rights. When he took his case to the High Court, the High Court respected his right and the case went in his favor, but he saw that this is a matter of great thought and it should go to the Supreme Court and he took his decision to the Supreme Court in the same way, but the Supreme Court completely overturned the decision he had received from the High Court and said that the Parliament has been given a special right under which the Parliament can make its own law on any matter and can also cancel it.
Sajjan Singh Case Law – Just like the decision was given in the Shankari Prasad case, when the Property Acquisition Act was made by the Parliament, he was the first to raise his voice and said that the Parliament has no right to violate our fundamental rights by making such a law. When he took his case to the High Court, the High Court respected his right and the case went in his favor, but he saw that this is a matter of great thought and it should go to the Supreme Court and he took his decision to the Supreme Court in the same way, but the Supreme Court completely overturned the decision he had received from the High Court and said that the Parliament has been given a special right under which the Parliament can make its own law on any matter and can also repeal it. And any law made under this can violate any other law.
Empact
However, the same decision comes in both Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and it says that the Parliament is the supreme authority and any law made by it can violate any other law and for this no person can oppose any law. However, the same decision comes in both Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and it says that Parliament is the highest authority and any law made by it can violate any other law and for this no person can oppose any law. Remember everyone says that the basic structure of the constitution was first published in the Sajjan Singh case by Janardan Muldhokar. Who gave more importance to the basic structure.
And finally come to the point of kesavanand Bharati case
After all these cases, in the Kesavananda Recruitment case, it was said that though the Parliament has been given the power to make any law and amend any provision, but the Parliament does not have the power to amend the principle of basic structure of the Constitution. And this got a lot of attention.
Relation between Golaknath case and Kesavananda Bharati case – Debate on power of constitutional amendment: In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court limited the amending power of the Parliament and excluded fundamental rights from amendment. The government then made the 24th and 25th amendments, under which Parliament was given the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Emergence of Kesavananda Bharati case: The issue was raised in the Kesavananda Bharati case to overturn the Golaknath judgment and redefine the power of constitutional amendment. The Kesavananda Bharati case established the “basic structure doctrine”, which gave Parliament the power to amend but put a condition that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be tampered with.
Land reform and fundamental rights dispute: The core of both cases was related to land reform laws and property rights.
The Kesavananda Bharati case modified the Golaknath judgment but also made a provision to protect the structure of the Constitution. The Golaknath case formed the basis for the Kesavananda Bharati case, as it gave rise to intense debate on the limits of constitutional amendment and the role of the judiciary, which remains one of the most important decisions in Indian constitutional history.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case set a milestone in the development of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court made it clear that,
Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
The Basic Structure of the Constitution includes fundamental rights, independence of the judiciary, balance of legislature-executive-judiciary, and secularism of India.
Balance of powers of the judiciary and legislature: This decision limited the power of the Parliament and ensured that the basic structure of the Constitution remains protected under judicial review.
Supremacy Doctrine of the Constitution: This decision established the Constitution as the supreme legal document and made provision to protect it from any kind of immediate political influences.
Effect: The “Basic Structure Doctrine” provided stability to Indian democracy and maintained the balance of power between the Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary. It ensured that the Constitution was able to maintain the values of Indian democracy and the justice system.
FAQS
Q1. What is the basic structure of this case?
Ans – Basic structure taken by Sajjan singh case law, basic structure discuss by justice Janardhan Mudhohalkar . The basic structure doctrine is an important concept of the Indian Constitution, which ensures that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot abolish or destroy its basic structure. This doctrine was first established in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Q2. What was the power of Parliament?
Ans – as per case law supreme court limit the power of parliament perspective in making new law and Amendment.
Q3. Basic Structure name use by?
Ans – First time Basic structure name use by Justice Janardhan Muldhohalkar.
