Author: Jatin Tiwari, New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune
Abstract
In Indian constitutional law, the Keshavananda Bharati case, officially known as Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, is a landmark judgement. This decision, which was delivered on April 24, 1973, by a 13-judge Supreme Court of India bench, is crucial to the development of the “basic structure doctrine.” According to this theory, the Parliament has broad but restricted authority to amend the Constitution; it is not permitted to change the fundamental framework of the document. This article examines the case’s specifics, including its legal foundations, supporting evidence, and wider constitutional law ramifications. This essay attempts to give a thorough explanation of the Keshavananda Bharati ruling by looking at pertinent case laws and legal precedents.
Introduction
The Keshavananda Bharati case, officially known as Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, is a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law that had a significant impact on how the Indian Constitution was interpreted and applied. The Kerala government’s attempts to enact land reform laws, which attempted to redistribute land to improve socioeconomic conditions but were seen as violating landowners’ property rights, were contested, giving rise to the lawsuit.
The leader of the Hindu monastic Edneer Mutt in Kerala, Swami Keshavananda Bharati, filed a writ petition in 1970 challenging the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. In an effort to lessen economic disparities, the Act was created to enforce land ceiling rules and redistribute surplus land to the landless. Specifically citing Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(f) (right to property), and 31 (compulsory acquisition of property), Swami Keshavananda contended that the Act violated several fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Background and Facts of the Case
Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution were cited by Swami Keshavananda. The freedom of conscience and the freedom to openly declare, practise, and spread one’s faith are guaranteed by Article 25. The freedom to conduct religious affairs is guaranteed under Article 26, which permits religious denominations to create and sustain institutions for both philanthropic and religious objectives. Within India’s borders, Article 14 guarantees equal protection under the law and equality before the law. A later repeal of Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed the right to acquire, possess, and dispose of property. Article 31, which was subsequently repealed, dealt with the compulsory acquisition of property and stipulated that it could only take place with legal authority and payment of compensation.
The case gained immense significance because it challenged the scope of Parliament’s power under Article 368 of the Constitution, which grants the power to amend the Constitution. According to Swami Keshavananda Bharati, the Kerala Land Reforms Act raised concerns about the boundaries of constitutional modifications because it violated the fundamental rights of religious institutions and their property. In particular, he argued that constitutional modifications that modify fundamental rights ought to be rejected if they compromise the essential framework of the document.
This legal dispute made its way to the Indian Supreme Court, where it became a crucial turning point in the country’s constitutional history. The Court was tasked with determining whether Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution was inherently limited, especially in relation to basic rights. The “basic structure doctrine” would be established as a result of the case’s conclusion, which would finally define the proportion between legislative power and the preservation of core constitutional values. This notion protects the fundamental ideals and principles of the Constitution from any legislative overreach by stating that, although Parliament may amend the document, it cannot change its fundamental framework or basic structure.
Relevant Constitutional Amendments
Before the Keshavananda Bharati case, several constitutional amendments were passed that significantly altered property rights, leading to the challenge:
1. First Amendment (1951): Introduced the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform and other laws from being challenged in courts. This was challenged in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951).
2. Fourth Amendment (1955): Restricted the right to property.
3. Seventeenth Amendment (1964): Expanded the Ninth Schedule. This was challenged in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)
4. Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971): Explicitly affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
5. Twenty-fifth Amendment (1971): Restricted the judicial review of property rights.
Pre-Keshavananda Bharati Cases
1. Union of India v. Shankari Prasad (1951):
The first landmark case Shankari Prasad v. Union of India addressed Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. The First Amendment Act of 1951, which attempted to restrict the right to property, was challenged in this case as being unconstitutional. The petitioner said that Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of Part III of the Constitution, which guarantee fundamental rights, were breached by the amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the amendment in its decision, holding that a constitutional amendment enacted pursuant to Article 368 is not included in the definition of “law” in Article 13(2). Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that Parliament has unrestricted power to change any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, was challenged. By adding more acts to the Constitution’s Ninth Schedule, this amendment shielded them from judicial review under Article 31B. The petitioners argued that some fundamental rights were violated by the change. By a majority vote, the Supreme Court upheld the Shankari Prasad ruling, which held that Parliament had the authority to change any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. Nonetheless, a few judges—most notably Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar—voiced concerns regarding the extent of Parliament’s amendment powers, raising the prospect of innate restrictions to protect the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967):
The decision in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab marked a significant departure from the earlier judgments. The Seventeenth Amendment Act, which attempted to restrict property rights, was once more challenged in this case. The Supreme Court overruled its earlier rulings in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh in a historic 6–5 majority ruling. The Court’s ruling guaranteed the preservation of basic rights from legislative meddling by ruling that Parliament could not alter them. Chief Justice Subba Rao’s majority opinion introduced the idea of future overruling in Indian constitutional law. The Court decided that Article 368 did not provide Parliament the authority to change basic rights; rather, it just outlined the process for modifying the Constitution. The objective of the judgement was to uphold the inviolability of basic rights and to emphasise that these vital safeguards should not be compromised by constitutional revisions.
Key Legal Issues
1. Extent of Amendment Powers (Article 368): Can the Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
2. Judicial Review: Is the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution subject to judicial review?
3. Basic Structure Doctrine: Does the Constitution have a basic structure that cannot be altered?
Arguments Presented
Petitioners’ Arguments
1. Infringement of Fundamental Rights: The amendments, especially the 24th and 25th, violate fundamental rights.
2. Basic Structure: The Constitution has a basic structure that Parliament cannot destroy.
3. Judicial Review: Any amendment affecting fundamental rights should be subject to judicial review.
Respondents’ Arguments
1. Supremacy of Parliament: Parliament has absolute power to amend the Constitution.
2. Amendment vs. Rewriting: Amendments can include any changes as long as they do not rewrite the entire Constitution.
3. People’s Will: The amendments reflect the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives.
Judgment
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case, delivered on April 24, 1973, was a monumental decision in Indian constitutional law. The judgement, which was adopted by a slim majority of 7:6, created the ground-breaking basic structure doctrine and radically altered the distribution of power between the legislature and the courts.
Majority Opinion
Chief Justice Sikri offered the majority judgement, which was backed by six other judges and stated that although Parliament has broad authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it is not permitted to change the fundamental framework of the document. This historic theory was created to safeguard the core provisions of the Constitution, making sure that modifications do not compromise the fundamental structure and tenets upon which it is based. The Court determined that some elements comprise the fundamental framework and are not subject to change by Parliament, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic and republican forms of government, the state’s secular nature, the division of powers, and the federal nature of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the majority believed that fundamental rights are an essential component of the Constitution’s core framework. Therefore, it would be unlawful for any amendment to try to restrict or eliminate these rights. This portion of the ruling emphasised the inviolability of basic rights and guaranteed their defence against governmental intrusions. As a component of the fundamental framework, the authority of judicial review was also confirmed.
The Court decided that judicial review is necessary to ensure that any statute or amendment is consistent with the Constitution, upholding the supremacy of the document and protecting citizens’ rights. This portion of the ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s position as the Constitution’s defender, with the authority to overturn unlawful changes.
Dissenting Opinion
Chief Justice A.N. Ray led the dissenting judges’ argument against the basic structure theory, claiming that Parliament has the power to change any provision of the Constitution, including the guarantees of fundamental rights. They argued that there are no clear restrictions on Parliament’s ability to modify the Constitution. The dissenting view holds that Parliament has unrestricted authority to alter the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, as stated in Article 368. They thought that restricting the amending power through judicial means would weaken Parliament’s sovereignty and upset the constitutionally intended balance of power. The dissenters were of the view that the only safeguard against potential misuse of the amending power was the democratic process itself, whereby the electorate could hold Parliament accountable.
Key Elements of the Basic Structure
The Court identified the following as elements of the basic structure, though not exhaustively:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Republican and democratic form of government
3. Secular character of the Constitution
4. Separation of powers
5. Federal character of the Constitution
6. Unity and integrity of the nation
7. Individual freedoms
8. Judicial review
Post- Keshavananda Bharati cases
1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine.
2. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Further reinforced the basic structure doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment for violating the basic structure.
3. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): Validated post-1973 amendments on the ground that they did not violate the basic structure.
Conclusion
The Keshavananda Bharati case is a seminal judgment that has profoundly influenced Indian constitutional law. By introducing the basic structure doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution are beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending powers. This judgment upholds the balance between the flexibility and rigidity of the Constitution, safeguarding the core values upon which the Indian state is founded.
FAQS
1. What is the basic structure doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine is a judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments enacted by Parliament.
2. Why is the Keshavananda Bharati case important?
This case is important because it established the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that essential elements of the Constitution are preserved and cannot be amended by Parliament.
3. Can the Parliament amend fundamental rights?
According to the Keshavananda Bharati judgment, Parliament can amend fundamental rights, but it cannot abrogate or destroy any fundamental right that forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. How did the Keshavananda Bharati case impact judicial review?
The case reinforced the power of judicial review, asserting that the judiciary has the authority to review and strike down constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure.
5. Have there been any challenges to the basic structure doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine has been consistently upheld in various judgments, including the Indira Nehru Gandhi case and the Minerva Mills case, reaffirming its central role in Indian constitutional law.
