Author:- SATYAM KUMARI, HIMALAYA LAW COLLEGE PATNA
Abstract
The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is considered a constitutional cornerstone in Indian legal jurisprudence. It established the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine,’ a principle that has since functioned as a safeguard against the misuse of amending powers by the Parliament. This article critically examines the case background, legal issues involved, judicial interpretations, and subsequent impact on Indian democracy. The ruling successfully preserved the foundational values of the Constitution, ensuring that the core principles such as rule of law, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights remain untouchable by legislative overreach.
To the Point
The core issue addressed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) was whether the Parliament possesses unlimited authority to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III. In a narrow 7:6 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, such powers are not absolute. Any amendment that destroys or emasculates the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution would be deemed unconstitutional. This judgment served as a judicial check on legislative supremacy, securing a dynamic equilibrium between change and continuity in constitutional governance.
Legal Reasoning and Doctrinal Basis
The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 368 does not grant Parliament unfettered power to amend the Constitution in a way that would nullify its essential features. The bench relied on a harmonious construction of Article 368 with Articles 13(2), 14, 19, and 21. The doctrine is rooted in the concept of constitutional supremacy, whereby the Constitution is the supreme law and any organ of the state, including Parliament, is subordinate to it.
These cannot be altered even through a constitutional amendment. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, writing for the majority, underscored that the Constitution derives its power from the people, and therefore its essential character cannot be abrogated by any institution, including the legislature.
The Proof
The challenge in the case arose primarily from the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to the Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, filed a petition under Article 32 seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights that he claimed were violated by the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
The government contended that Parliament had absolute authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court, however, interpreted ‘amendment’ to mean that the basic identity and philosophy of the Constitution must remain intact. In support of this view, the Court conducted an in-depth historical and philosophical inquiry into the framing of the Constitution, the intentions of the Constituent Assembly, and comparative constitutional law from countries like the United States and Germany.
Case Laws
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461:
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643:
In this case, Although this judgment was overruled in Kesavananda Bharati, the essence was retained through the Basic Structure Doctrine.
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789:
This case reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, emphasizing that limited amending power itself is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299:
This case further cemented the Basic Structure Doctrine when the Supreme Court invalidated clause 4 of Article 329-A inserted by the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion
By articulating and enforcing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court safeguarded the soul of the Indian Constitution from majoritarian impulses and executive overreach. The verdict ensured that while Parliament remains competent to make transformative amendments, it must respect the Constitution’s core philosophy. Even today, this doctrine remains vital in preserving India’s constitutional ethos, providing both stability and flexibility within the democratic framework.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
It is a judicial principle stating that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental features like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and judicial review.
2. Why is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala significant?
It limited Parliament’s amending power by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, thereby preserving the foundational values of the Constitution.
3. Who delivered the majority opinion?
Chief Justice S.M. Sikri led the majority opinion, with six other judges concurring, in a narrow 7:6 split verdict.
4. Is the Basic Structure Doctrine still relevant?
Yes, it continues to be cited in multiple Supreme Court rulings to ensure that amendments do not distort the Constitution’s essential features.
5. Can the Basic Structure Doctrine be overruled?
No, it has become a part of the constitutional jurisprudence of India and is upheld as a guiding doctrine in interpreting constitutional amendments.
Historical Context and Constitutional Background
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati must be understood in the historical context of political tensions during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Parliament and judiciary were frequently at odds over the interpretation of constitutional powers. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Golaknath, which restricted Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights, the government responded with constitutional amendments designed to reassert legislative supremacy. This escalation prompted the judiciary to clearly define limits to Parliament’s amending power. The Basic Structure Doctrine thus emerged as a response to perceived executive excess and as a means to preserve democratic checks and balances.
Judicial Composition and Arguments
The Kesavananda Bharati case was heard by the largest ever constitutional bench in India, comprising 13 judges. The sheer number of judges reflected the importance of the questions raised. Eleven separate opinions were delivered, with differing lines of reasoning, reflecting both ideological diversity and the complex nature of constitutional interpretation. Notably, Justice H.R. Khanna played a pivotal role. He clarified that not all parts of the Constitution enjoy equal protection from amendment. The judgment did not enumerate all basic features but left it open for future interpretation.
Impact on Indian Constitutionalism
It has been invoked in several landmark cases to strike down constitutional amendments that seek to alter the core ethos of the Constitution. In the SR Bommai v. Union of India case, the doctrine played a role in affirming federalism and secularism as basic features. It has also had the effect of emboldening judicial review, thereby solidifying the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. This judgment enhanced the system of checks and balances by ensuring that no branch of government could override the foundational principles of the Constitution.
Criticism and Debates
Some legal scholars argue that it gives unelected judges excessive power to override the will of the elected legislature. Critics contend that it introduces vagueness into constitutional interpretation, as the exact contours of the ‘basic structure’ are undefined and evolving. However, defenders argue that such judicial discretion is essential to protect democratic integrity and minority rights in a majoritarian political system. The doctrine continues to provoke robust academic and political debate, reinforcing its significance in constitutional discourse.
Conclusion (Summary)
In summary, the Kesavananda Bharati case is not just a landmark decision; it is the bedrock of Indian constitutional law. It reaffirmed that while Parliament is a powerful body, it is not supreme over the Constitution. The introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine has given the judiciary a powerful tool to uphold constitutional morality, protect civil liberties, and preserve institutional integrity. It reflects a sophisticated balance between change and continuity, between reform and preservation. Its relevance remains undiminished even five decades later, making it a living doctrine in the evolving narrative of Indian democracy.
