Author: Mamta, K.E.S. Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai
Abstract
The Keshavananda Bharati case, formally known as Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973), stands as a monumental decision in Indian constitutional law, marking a significant turning point in the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of the Indian government. This landmark judgment established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” a legal principle that imposes implicit limitations on the ability of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The doctrine asserts that while Parliament can exercise its constitutional power to amend, it cannot destroy or abrogate the Constitution’s basic structure or its foundational principles.
This article delves into the intricacies of the case, highlighting the historical context, the key arguments presented by both sides, and the comprehensive reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court of India in its decision. By examining the legal precedents, the socio-political environment of the time, and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation, this analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the case’s implications and its enduring impact on the Indian legal landscape.
This article also explores the subsequent case laws that have reaffirmed or challenged the principles established in the Keshavananda Bharati case, illustrating its pivotal role in the ongoing evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in India. The case became one of the most important cases in Indian constitutional history, and Sri Keshavananda Bharati is remembered as a key figure in the fight to uphold the principles of democracy and also the rule of law in India.
Introduction
The Keshavananda Bharati case, formally known as Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973), is widely regarded as a historic event in the history of Indian constitutional law. This case stands out as a crucial turning point in the interpretation of the Indian Constitution, particularly concerning the extent of Parliament’s power to amend its provisions. Decided by a 13-judge bench, the largest ever constituted in the history of the Supreme Court of India, the case addressed the pressing question of whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was absolute or if there were implicit limitations to protect its fundamental structure.
Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition challenging the Kerala government’s imposition of land reforms that curtailed the rights of religious institutions. While the case originated as a challenge to property rights, it quickly escalated into a broader debate over constitutional amendments and the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary.
At the heart of the controversy were the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, enacted by the Parliament to assert greater legislative control and limit judicial review. The petitioners, represented by eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala, argued that these amendments infringed upon the fundamental rights and violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The government’s position, argued by legal luminaries such as H.M. Seervai, maintained that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was unrestricted.
The bench consisting 13 judges was set up to hear the case as it involved important constitutional questions regarding the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and took six months to hear the arguments and then deliver the final judgment.
The Keshavananda Bharati case has had a profound and lasting impact on the Indian legal system, shaping the contours of constitutional interpretation and reaffirming the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights. As we explore the details of this landmark case, we will examine its legal implications, the reasoning behind the court’s decision, and its enduring legacy in the annals of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Background of the Case
Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastic institution in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the Mutt’s property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. The case was initially filed as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies.
The legal challenge was not just about property rights; it quickly escalated into a broader constitutional question. The petitioner argued that the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and, therefore, were void.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue in the Keshavananda Bharati case was the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The case questioned whether this power was absolute or whether there were inherent limitations to ensure the preservation of the Constitution’s core values and principles.
The specific questions before the court were:
Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
Does the power of amendment include the power to abrogate or destroy the Constitution’s essential features?
What are the essential features of the Constitution that cannot be altered?
The Proof
The petitioners, led by eminent jurists such as Nani Palkhivala, argued that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not unlimited. They contended that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that cannot be altered or destroyed by any amendment. The fundamental rights, democratic principles, and the separation of powers were cited as examples of this basic structure.
The respondents, representing the government, argued that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute and unrestricted. They claimed that since the Constitution was a document created by the people through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, the same representatives, in the form of Parliament, could make changes as deemed necessary.
The crux of the petitioner’s argument was that the Constitution is not just a legal document but a social contract that guarantees certain inalienable rights and principles. They relied on the precedents set in earlier cases such as Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
Case Laws
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not curtail any of the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. The court’s decision was based on the idea that fundamental rights are “transcendental” and beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power. This case set the stage for the debate on the extent of Parliament’s power under Article 368.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): In contrast to the Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. The court reasoned that the term “law” in Article 13(2) did not include constitutional amendments, thus allowing Parliament to amend fundamental rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The court reiterated the stance taken in Shankari Prasad, emphasizing that the power to amend the Constitution was vested solely in Parliament.
IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the court took a different approach, ruling that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This decision led to the 24th Amendment, which was one of the amendments challenged in the Keshavananda Bharati case.
The Judgment
The Keshavananda Bharati case was heard by a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme Court of India, making it one of the largest benches in Indian legal history. The bench consisted of Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice A.N. Grover, Justices A.N. Ray, Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice S.N. Dwivedi, Justice A.K. Mukherjee and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority of 7:6, introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” a principle that has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. According to this doctrine, while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features. This judgment not only limited the scope of parliamentary power but also reinforced the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the Constitution’s core values remain intact.
The court did not define the basic structure exhaustively but provided examples, including:
The supremacy of the Constitution.
The rule of law.
The principle of separation of powers.
The objectives set out in the Preamble.
The fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III.
The federal structure of the Constitution.
The court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, which affirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but struck down parts of the 25th Amendment that sought to limit judicial review and dilute the right to property. The significance of the Kehsavananda Bharati case lies in the fact that it established the doctrine of basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and, the rule of law, cannot be amended or changed by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment.
Impact of the Judgment
The Keshavananda Bharati case is widely regarded as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. The Basic Structure Doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court has since served as a critical check on parliamentary power. The doctrine ensures that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot do so in a manner that would destroy its essential features.
This doctrine has been reaffirmed in subsequent cases, such as Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Supreme Court struck down the 39th Amendment for violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
The judgment also solidified the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. It emphasized that the Constitution is not just a document that can be altered at will but is a living entity that embodies the will of the people and their aspirations for justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Conclusion
The Keshavananda Bharati case is more than just a legal battle over constitutional amendments; it is a testament to the resilience of the Indian Constitution and the democratic principles it enshrines. The Basic Structure Doctrine has ensured that the Constitution remains a dynamic and enduring document that can adapt to changing times without losing its core identity.
The case also underscores the importance of judicial review in safeguarding constitutional values. It serves as a reminder that while elected representatives have the mandate to govern, they must do so within the framework of the Constitution, respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms it guarantees. The court stated that the term ‘amend’ mentioned in Article 368 doesn’t imply amendments that can alter or change the Constitution’s basic structure. If the Parliament intends to amend with respect to a constitutional provision, such an amendment would necessarily have to undergo the ‘basic structure’ test.
The basic structure cannot be amended certain fundamental features of the constitution by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment. This doctrine has served as a check on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and also has ensured that the Constitution remains a living document that is amenable to changing times while preserving its fundamental values and principles
The Keshavananda Bharati judgment not only shaped the contours of constitutional law in India but also underscored the importance of maintaining a robust system of checks and balances among the branches of government. By upholding the sanctity of the Constitution’s core values, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, protecting it from potential overreach by the legislature. The Keshavananda Bharati case has thus had far-reaching consequences for the constitutional development of India, making it one of the most significant cases in Indian constitutional law.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)
What is the Keshavananda Bharati case?
The Keshavananda Bharati case, formally known as Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a legal principle established by the Supreme Court of India, which holds that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by parliamentary amendments.
Why was the Keshavananda Bharati case important?
The case is important because it set a precedent for limiting the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution, such as democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, are preserved.
What was the outcome of the Keshavananda Bharati case?
The Supreme Court ruled by a 7:6 majority that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. The court upheld the 24th Amendment but struck down parts of the 25th Amendment.
How did the Keshavananda Bharati case impact Indian constitutional law?
The case had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has been used in subsequent cases to protect the Constitution’s core values from being undermined by parliamentary amendments.
What are some examples of the basic structure of the Constitution?
Examples include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, the objectives set out in the Preamble, the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III, and the federal structure of the Constitution.
Can the basic structure of the Constitution be amended?
No, according to the Basic Structure Doctrine established in the Keshavananda Bharati case, Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. Any amendment that attempts to do so can be struck down by the judiciary.
