Author: Likitha Sri Meka, a 3rd year BBALLB student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973) is a corner judgment in Indian indigenous law, substantially for the establishment of the introductory structure doctrine. The case arose when Keshavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to limit the operation of religious parcels under state legislation. The larger indigenous issue was whether Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution to alter its basic structure. It’s a literal maturity judgment in 7- 6 which the Supreme Court made by declaring that Parliament possesses ample powers in the environment of amending the Constitution under Article 368, yet those emendations shall not affect or destroy the” introductory structure” thereof. It determined that there was some abecedarian principles like republic, separation of powers, federalism, rule of law, and judicial review which together comprise the” introductory structure of the Constitution”. These can not be amended or disannulled, not indeed by a indigenous correction for that would change unnaturally who the Constitution is. The judgment in Keshavananda Bharati marked a watershed shift in the balance of power between the Legislature and the Judiciary. It placed a judicial check on the capability of Parliament to amend the Constitution, icing that the core values elevated in it remained complete. The judgment also corroborated the part of the bar in conserving indigenous integrity and acting as the ultimate arbitrator in determining what constitutes the introductory structure. therefore, Keshavananda Bharati surfaced as the foundation of Indian indigenous justice and defended the Constitution from getting vulnerable to abuse by reminding some principles that are above political and legislative changes.
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a legal principle that asserts certain abecedarian features of the Indian Constitution can not be altered by emendations. Established in the Keshavananda Bharati case( 1973), this doctrine limits the Amendment Power granted to Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. While Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution, the Court held that emendations that alter or destroy its” introductory structure” are taboo. Judicial Review is the power of the bar to examine the legislative and administrative acts for their conformity with the Constitution. This power allows the bar to insure that no indigenous correction or law made by Parliament violates the introductory structure of the Constitution. From this, the Doctrine of” Unconstitutional Correction” flows, which holds that an correction to the Constitution violating the introductory structure is void and can not stand. This prevents Parliament from using its correction power to destroy abecedarian principles like republic, rule of law, and separation of powers, thereby conserving the integrity of the Constitution. All these doctrines cover the core values of the Indian Constitution from being altered by flash political majorities. The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973) relates to the compass of power of Parliament in amending the Indian Constitution under Article 368. This case happed when Keshavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged the law legislated by the Kerala government that confined the operation of his matha, therefore violating his abecedarian rights, and particularly the right to administer property. The central legal question was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited, or if there were any essential limitations to help the revision of basic indigenous principles.
In a major ruling by a 13- judge bench, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, but similar emendations can not alter the” introductory structure” or core features of the Constitution. This decision gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court made it clear that the correction power under Composition 368 is not absolute. Any attempt to alter the introductory structure of the Constitution would be invalid. Although the Court did not explicitly define the” introductory structure,” it linked crucial rudiments, which include federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, republic, and individual rights, that make up the veritably core of the Constitution and can not be changed through emendations. This judgment assured that Parliament could not undermine or adulterate the core values of the Constitution through indigenous emendations, which would have else adulterated the veritably substance and integrity of the Constitution. The judgment thus corroborated the significance of protection of abecedarian indigenous principles against arbitrary changes.
Abstract
The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment marked a watershed in the history of Indian constitutional law when the “basic structure” doctrine was first enunciated and has since become the very fabric of Indian jurisprudence. The case originated from a challenge to Kerala state legislation that restricted the management of his matha (monastery), which he averred infringed his fundamental rights. The broader legal issue concerned the extent of Parliament’s amendment power under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that Parliament, while having the power to amend any part of the Constitution, cannot amend its basic structure or core principles. The Court did not define “basic structure” exhaustively but identified key elements such as federalism, separation of powers, judicial review, democracy, and fundamental rights as integral to the Constitution’s identity. This decision placed a significant limitation on Parliament’s otherwise broad amendment powers, ensuring that essential features of the Constitution cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
Judgment also reinforced the principle of judicial review, wherein the judiciary was held to be responsible for scrutinizing any constitutional amendments to ensure that they did not erode the basic structure of the Constitution. This role of the judiciary acts as a check on the potential misuse of power by the legislature and prevents alterations that could be detrimental to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Keshavananda Bharati case has changed the face of the relationship between the judiciary and legislature by leaving some principles inviolate and thereby saving the dignity and sanctity of India’s Constitution.
Case Laws
The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case for the year 1973 is one of the strongest judgments in the Indian annals of constitutional law by reason of its Basic Structure Doctrine, which constrains the power of Parliament as it relates to amending the constitution. The principles of Keshavananda Bharati build on, revisit, and, at times, overrule earlier judgments that have determined the contour of Article 368 and the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Four landmark cases: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) capture this evolution of constitutional law.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
In Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Parliament’s power of amending any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. The petitioners in that case had challenged the First Amendment to the Constitution because it had curtailed a few Fundamental Rights. In such an event, the Court pronounced Article 368 as granting absolute power upon the Parliament to amend the Constitution that included the part relating to Fundamental Rights. This judgment was important because it established the supremacy of Parliament in constitutional amendments and opened the door to the possibility of amending or even abrogating fundamental rights, thereby interpreting the amendment power as virtually unlimited.
However, this interpretation was reconsidered in later cases, including Golaknath and Keshavananda Bharati. The Shankari Prasad judgment was eventually seen as too permissive, enabling changes to fundamental rights, which could potentially undermine the core values of the Constitution.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Golaknath case marked a dramatic shift in the interpretation of Article 368. The Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad judgment and held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The petitioners in this case challenged the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Court held by a narrow majority of 6-5 that the basic structure, including fundamental rights, cannot be amended under Article 368. The judgment restrained Parliament in the significant way to hold that the essential features of the Constitution, fundamental rights included, cannot be altered.
However, this judgment remained for only a short span of time. Golaknath was overruled by the much more balanced Keshavananda Bharati judgment. In Keshavananda Bharati, the Court accepted that though Parliament had immense powers to amend the Constitution, there was an implicit limitation on this power: the amendment could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, while Golaknath denied Parliament the right to amend fundamental rights, Keshavananda Bharati established that such an amendment would be permissible, provided it did not alter the basic structure.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles enunciated in the Keshavananda Bharati case. It was a case relating to the Forty-Second Amendment which aimed at giving precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights. The court ruled that any amendment which upset the balance between fundamental rights and the Directive Principles would be unconstitutional. This ruling brought the doctrine of basic structure to light, which highlighted the requirement of maintaining the fundamental balance between rights and duties.
The judgment in Minerva Mills reinforced that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by amendments that disturb the core values of the Constitution, such as the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution’s essential principles. The decision cemented the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution’s basic structure against changes that could undermine its foundational elements.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
In I.R. Coelho case, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope of judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments. The Court held that judicial review is applicable to amendments made under Article 368 and emphasized that amendments affecting the basic structure of the Constitution would be subject to judicial scrutiny. The ruling reiterated the importance of the basic structure doctrine and reinforced the idea that Parliament’s amendment power is not absolute.
This case was significant because it extended the application of the basic structure doctrine to President’s assent amendments, ensuring that even if amendments were passed by Parliament and received presidential assent, they could still be invalidated if they violated the Constitution’s core features.
Conclusion
The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case is one of the most transformative opinions in Indian indigenous history. By establishing the introductory structure doctrine, the Supreme Court assured that certain essential features of the Indian Constitution, similar as republic, rule of law, separation of powers, and abecedarian rights, could not be altered by any indigenous correction. This corner judgment not only defined the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but also laid emphasis on the introductory significance of guarding the integrity and core principles of the Constitution from legislative emendations.
The introductory structure doctrine acts as a significant check, which prevents the Constitution’s frame from being eroded by temporary political majorities or legislative overreach. It ensures that though Parliament can amend the Constitution, the emendations can not alter the abecedarian features of the Constitution, which form the bedrock of India’s popular system.
The judgment corroborated the conception of judicial review and established the part of the bar as a guardian of indigenous integrity.The Court’s judgment in Keshavananda Bharati was emphatic on this aspect of balance between legislative power to amend the Constitution and the power of the bar to review similar emendations. In no way can the three bodies of the Constitution be allowed to alter its introductory values unilaterally.
In substance, the Keshavananda Bharati case is not just about how far Parliament can amend but to maintain a precarious balance between legislative and judicial powers. And this judgment continues to be of crucial significance in erecting the Indian state’s organic relationship between its different constituent organs, while keeping core principles complete.
FAQs
1. What was the Keshavananda Bharati case about?
The case centered around the issue of indigenous emendations and whether Parliament had the power to change the introductory structure of the Constitution by passing emendations.
2. What is the introductory structure doctrine?
The introductory structure doctrine states that Parliament can not amend or alter the abecedarian frame of the Constitution, although it has the power to amend its vittles.
3. Who was the supplicant in the case of Keshavananda Bharati?
Keshavananda Bharati was a religious leader and head of a matha in Kerala who challenged the Kerala government’s restrictions on the operation of his institution.
4. What was the judgment of the Supreme Court?
The Court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its introductory structure so that the core principles of the Constitution are saved.
5. How did Keshavananda Bharati influence latterly case law?
The case established the introductory structure doctrine, which was affirmed and applied in after judgments similar as Minerva Mills and I.R. Coelho, which defined India’s legal understanding of the indigenous emendations.
References
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (India).
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (India).
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 (India).
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 (India).
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 278 (11th ed. 2019).
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation 68 (Oxford University Press 1966).
D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India 115 (23rd ed. 2020).
