Author: Mahi Jha, a student at Chanakya Law College, Rudrapur.
ABSTRACT
Kesavananda Bharti case stands as a landmark case and a watershed moment in Indian Constitutional history, shaping the foundation of judicial review and the delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and fundamental rights. This article undertakes a meticulous analysis of the case, examining the pivotal arguments, judicial pronouncements, and enduring impact on constitutional landscape. Delving into intricacies of Doctrine of Basic Structure, this piece dissects the nuances of legal arguments and judicial deliberation. This article aims to elucidate the profound and lasting impact of this case and examining the background, offering a scholarly exploration of its intricate legal facets.
INTRODUCTION
Kesavananda Bharti case was the longest running case of the history of Indian Judiciary, whose trial was of 68 days. More than 100 cases were sidelined for this case and to know what is right and wrong, constitution of more than 70 countries were compared. A bench of 13 judges of supreme court made the judgement and its judgement was of 703 pages.
After independence every state was rebuilding their social & economic condition. At that time system was like that resources and means of production were limited to certain people & slowly they realized that this concentration of wealth is not right and to change this all states were up to make changes in the existing laws & system, and so did the government of state of Kerala. Kerala’s government for rebuilding the social & economic condition of their state introduced laws for zamindari system, land ownership, tenancy, etc. Under this restriction was imposed over the ownership of land. Land would be distributed among the poor in order to lower the gap between rich and poor. So, by using this act, Kerala government acquired the land of “Edneer Mutt” of Kasaragod district.
LAND REFORM ACT
Land reforms in India refers to a series of legislative measures aimed at addressing historical inequalities in land distribution. During post-independence period, these reforms primarily sought to promote social justice, alleviate rural poverty, abolish intermediary, enhance agricultural productivity, and to redistribute land to landless farmers. The overarching goal was to create a more equitable agrarian structure by ensuring that land ownership should be more widely distributed.
Pre-Independence Era:
Before independence, the British colonial administration introduced the “Zamindari System”, where intermediaries, known as zamindars, were given the responsibility of collecting revenue from peasants. This system led to the concentration of land in few hands, contributing rural poverty.
Post-Independence Era:
- Abolition of Zamindari System: Soon after Independence, Indian government abolished the zamindari system. The Zamindari Abolition Acts were enacted by various states to transfer the ownership of land from zamindars to peasants.
- Tenancy Reforms: States also implemented tenancy reforms to protect the rights of tenants. These reforms confer the ownership rights to tenants.
- Land Ceilings and Redistribution: To address issues of land concentration, states enacted laws setting a maximum limit on the land an individual or family could hold. Surplus land beyond ceiling was acquired by government and redistributed to landless farmers.
- Consolidation of Holdings: Some states initiated land consolidation programs to reorganize fragmented landholdings, aiming to improve agricultural productivity and efficiency.
HISTORICAL PERSPECtive
1st Constitutional Amendment:
When Right to Property was a Fundamental Right, it contradicts with Land Reforms, so many petitions were filed by zamindars in Supreme Court, as it was a violation of their rights. As between Fundamental Rights and DPSP, Fundamental Rights are always considered superior. So, in order to solve this, 1st constitutional amendment was made in 1951. In this, Article 31 (Right to Property) was amended and two new clauses were added, (a) clause affirmed the Right to Property, but allowed for compulsory acquisition by state for public interest, (b) clause shifted it to 9th schedule, which means now Land Reforms are free from Judicial Review.
Shankari Prasad V. Union of India (1951):
This case dealt with the constitutional validity of 1st amendment. According to article 13(2), laws violating Fundamental Rights becomes void. Then how can 1st amendment be valid, as it violates Right to Property, and Article 13(2) should limit Article 368.
Supreme Court in its Judgement said that Article 13 and Article 368 are different. Amendments cannot be affected by Article 13, and only other laws (without amendment) are affected by Article 13.
17th Constitutional Amendment:
There were some acts of land reforms due to which government was not able to cease the land of many rich landlords. So, in 1964, 17th amendment was made to cease the land of rich landlords. Under this amendment, new provisions made in Land Reforms were shifted to 9th schedule.
Sajjan Singh V. State of Punjab:
This case dealt with the relation between Article 13 and 368, as new amendments being made in Fundamental Right violates Article 13.
Supreme Court in its judgement held the same judgement of Shankari Prasad, in which Article 13 and 368 are different and Parliament (by article 368) can amend anything.
Golakhnath V. State of Punjab (1967):
The central issue revolved around the constitutional validity of parliament’s power towards the limit of usage of Article 368, and the applicability of Article 13 and challenging 17th amendment.
In this case, 11 bench of Judges, made a Judgement by majority of 6:5. Court overruling its judgement on Shankari Prasad, held that Article 368 is not free from Article 13, means parliament don’t have unlimited powers and cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN ARTICLE 13 AND 368
The conflict and contradiction between Article 13 and 368, revolves around the powers of Parliament to amend the constitution and its impacts on Fundamental Rights.
- Article 13: The laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, becomes void and state is not permitted to make any law that violates Fundamental Rights.
- Article 368: This article deals with the amending powers of the Parliament and its procedure.
The conflict arose primarily due to the interpretation of the amending powers. Article 13 acts as a limit in the amending powers of Parliament, whereas Article 368 gives amending powers to Parliament. Question arose whether Parliament can also amend Fundamental Rights and what are the limits of the amending powers.
POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN PARLIAMENT AND JUDICIARY
The power struggle between the Parliament and Judiciary centered around the amending powers of Parliament under Article 368 and its impact on Fundamental Rights under article 13. The Judicial decisions and Judgements were overthrown by amendments of Parliament. At that many cases were running in Supreme Court, and a power struggle was clearly seen.
During India Gandhi’s rule, 24th amendment was done in Article 13 and 368. Clauses were added in both articles. Article 13(4) says that it has no relation with Article 368. Article 368(2) says that it has no relation with Article 13. This effectively overruled the interpretation of Golakhnath case.
Also, Supreme Court in Golakhnath judgement, imposed restrictions on amending powers of Parliament, so to avoid the restrictions, 24th,25thand 29th amendments were done.
KESAVANANDA BHARTI V. STATE OF KERALA
Who was Kesavananda Bharti:
Kesavananda Bharti was a prominent religious figure and the head of Edneer Mutt of Kerala, India. He became well known not only for his spiritual role but also as the most pivotal and landmark cases in the constitutional history of India.
Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963:
Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 aimed to abolish intermediaries, limit landownership through land ceiling, and redistribute surplus land to landless farmers and peasants, to promote a more equitable distribution.
A restriction was put over the limits to land, so by using this act, Kerala government acquired the land of Edneer Mutt of Kasaragod district. After this takeover the income of Mutt totally gets affected and they were facing problems to manage their daily works of Mutt.
Overview of case:
Kesavananda Bharti in Supreme Court challenged the land acquisition. He was represented by Prominent Advocate Nana Bhai Phalkivala, challenged and filed a writ petition as Land Reform Act violated the Fundamental Rights like – Article 14, 19(f), 25 and 26 and argued that owning and managing the property is a Fundamental Right which can’t be amended. Also, he challenged the constitutional validity of 24th,25th, and 29th amendment.
Arguments of Petitioner:
- Article 368 of Indian Constitution, which gives amending powers is not absolute power, and this power is limited. So, Parliament cannot change provisions according to its will’
- Rights given in Constitution is to protect the freedom of citizens like Article 19(1)(f), which says about right to property.
- Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
- 24th and 25th amendment was invented to impose restriction on Fundamental Rights of the citizens, which is wrong.
Arguments of Respondent:
- Parliament has unlimited and absolute powers to amend the constitution.
- Every state government has to work for the improvement and development, so in such situation no restriction should be imposed on Parliament.
- Parliament has the power to put restriction on Fundamental Rights, as these are not absolute rights.
Judgement of the Case:
13 Judge Bench, delivered the landmark Judgement on April 24, 1973. The Judgement was made by citing more than 100 cases and after reading constitution of more than 70 countries. The judgement was of 703 pages, introducing the concept of “Basic Structure Doctrine”, which defines the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the constitution.
In previous case of Golakhnath, Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. Now Supreme Court overruled its judgement and said that 24th amendment is valid that Parliament can amend any provision as said by Article 368 of Indian Constitution.
Although Parliament has the power to amend anything in the constitution, but only to that extent where they cannot interfere with Basic and Essential features and this is called “Basic Structure Doctrine”.
Basic Structure Doctrine:
According to this doctrine, while the Indian Parliament has the power to amend the constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute nor unlimited. The doctrine asserted that there exists a “Basic Structure” or “Essential Features” of the constitution that cannot be altered through amendments.
Basic Structure Doctrine, although didn’t gave any Exhaustive list but Indicative list was given and these features will qualify for the Basic elements :-
- Supremacy of Constitution
- Rule of Law
- Separation of Power
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Independence of Judiciary
- Sovereignty
- Democratic and Republic Structure, etc.
These elements are not fixed but will be added further by courts through decisions made on case by case basis.
CONCLUSION
In this case Supreme Court used its creativity and introduced a new doctrine of “Basic Structure Doctrine”. Though on one hand this gave absolute amending powers to Parliament, but on the other hand said that Parliament cannot interfere with basic feature. This case safeguarded Indian Constitution`s sole.
The judgement was marked by solving the long going conflict and power struggle between Judiciary and Parliament, particularly in the context of the clash between Article 13 and Article 368, has been marked by delicate balance. While Parliament’s authority to amend the constitution remains intact, the Judiciary’s ability to review and strike down amendments that violate the basic structure ensures the preservation of core constitutional principles and safeguards from arbitrary use of power.
The evolution of this Jurisprudential framework stands as a testament to the resilience of the Indian constitutional system in navigating and resolving complex conflicts between key branches of governance.
