Case Study: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

• FastrackGovind
• Constitution law
• August 7, 2024

Introduction

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on April 24, 1973, stands as one of the most significant and enduring judgments in the annals of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. This landmark decision fundamentally shaped the understanding and interpretation of the Indian Constitution’s basic structure, establishing a precedent that defines the scope and limits of parliamentary power and judicial review.

Background

The origins of the Kesavananda Bharati case can be traced to the socio-political context of post-independence India, characterized by extensive legislative activity aimed at socioeconomic reform. During this period, various state governments, including Kerala, enacted land reform laws to redistribute land and reduce disparities. These laws often conflicted with the property rights guaranteed by the Constitution, leading to numerous legal challenges.

Kesavananda Bharati and the Land Reforms

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in Kerala, owned considerable property. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, aimed at imposing restrictions on the management of religious property and curtailing property rights, directly affected the Mutt’s land holdings. Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(f) (Right to Property), and 25 (Right to Practice and Propagate Religion).

Constitutional Amendments and the Battle for Supremacy

The legal battle in Kesavananda Bharati’s case escalated into a broader constitutional conflict, centering on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This issue had been a contentious one since the early years of the Republic, with several landmark cases and constitutional amendments shaping its trajectory.

The Shankari Prasad Case (1951): In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment, which curtailed the right to property to facilitate land reforms. The Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend fundamental rights.

The Sajjan Singh Case (1965): In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Shankari Prasad, emphasizing that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

The Golaknath Case (1967): A significant turning point came with the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, where the Supreme Court ruled by a narrow majority that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The Court held that the word “law” in Article 13(2) included constitutional amendments, thus restricting Parliament’s amending power.

In response to the Golaknath judgment, Parliament enacted the 24th and 25th Amendments to restore its power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The 24th Amendment explicitly affirmed Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, while the 25th Amendment sought to limit judicial review of amendments affecting property rights.

Key Issues in the Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Kesavananda Bharati case brought to the fore several crucial issues concerning constitutional law and the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary:

1. Extent of Parliamentary Power: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, without any limitations?
2. Doctrine of Basic Structure: Does the Constitution possess a basic structure or framework that is immune to amendments by Parliament?
3. Judicial Review of Amendments: To what extent can the judiciary review and invalidate constitutional amendments passed by Parliament?

Proceedings and Arguments

The Kesavananda Bharati case was heard by a full bench of 13 judges, the largest ever constituted by the Supreme Court of India. The hearings, which commenced on October 31, 1972, and concluded on March 23, 1973, spanned 68 working days, making it one of the longest and most comprehensive cases in Indian legal history.

Petitioner’s Argument (Kesavananda Bharati):

• Scope of Article 368: The petitioners contended that Article 368, which grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, does not confer unlimited power. They argued that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution, such as fundamental rights, democratic principles, and the rule of law, form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners emphasized that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are sacrosanct and should be immune from amendments that infringe upon their essence. They argued that the amendments in question, particularly the 24th and 25th Amendments, violated the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining fundamental rights.
• Doctrine of Basic Structure: The petitioners urged the Court to recognize and adopt the doctrine of basic structure, which would act as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of amending power by Parliament.

Respondent’s Argument (State of Kerala and Union of India):

• Unlimited Amending Power: The respondents contended that Article 368 grants Parliament plenary power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. They argued that the power to amend is essential for the Constitution’s adaptability and evolution in response to changing social, economic, and political circumstances.
• Sovereignty of Parliament: The respondents emphasized the sovereignty of Parliament as the representative body of the people, asserting that its power to amend the Constitution should not be subject to judicial limitations. They argued that judicial review of constitutional amendments would undermine the democratic process and the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
• Validity of Amendments: The respondents defended the 24th and 25th Amendments as necessary measures to restore Parliament’s amending power and facilitate socioeconomic reforms. They argued that these amendments did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, as they were intended to promote social justice and equality.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on April 24, 1973. The decision was complex, with multiple opinions delivered by different judges. However, the majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Sikri and six other judges, laid down the following key principles:

1. Parliament’s Power to Amend: The Court upheld that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. The basic structure includes:
   • Supremacy of the Constitution
   • Republican and democratic form of government
   • Secular character of the Constitution
   • Separation of powers
   • Federal character of the Constitution
   • Judicial review
   • Rule of law
   • Balance between fundamental rights and directive principles
3. Validity of Amendments: The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, which confirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, it struck down parts of the 25th Amendment that sought to limit the judiciary’s power to review amendments affecting property rights.

Analysis of the Judgment

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a landmark in Indian constitutional law for several reasons. It established the principle that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not unlimited and is subject to the basic structure doctrine. The judgment struck a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution are preserved.

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure:

The doctrine of basic structure is the cornerstone of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. It asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be altered or destroyed by parliamentary amendments. This doctrine ensures that the essential character of the Constitution, as envisioned by its framers, is preserved. The basic structure includes:

• Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws and amendments must conform to its provisions.
• Republican and Democratic Form of Government: India is a republic with a democratic form of government, characterized by free and fair elections, representation, and accountability.
• Secular Character of the Constitution: The Constitution guarantees the secular nature of the state, ensuring freedom of religion and equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.
• Separation of Powers: The Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, ensuring checks and balances.
• Federal Character of the Constitution: The Constitution establishes a federal structure with a division of powers between the central and state governments.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power to review and invalidate laws and amendments that violate the Constitution’s provisions.
• Rule of Law: The Constitution guarantees the rule of law, ensuring that all individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable under the law.
• Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The Constitution seeks to balance individual fundamental rights with the directive principles of state policy, promoting social justice and economic welfare.

2. Judicial Review of Amendments:

The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. It emphasized that the judiciary has the power to review and invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure. This principle ensures that the core values and principles of the Constitution are protected from arbitrary or excessive amendments by Parliament.

3. Limitation on Parliamentary Power:

By establishing the basic structure doctrine, the judgment placed a significant limitation on parliamentary power. While Parliament retains the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental features. This limitation ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, capable of evolving and adapting to changing circumstances, while preserving its essential character.

4. Protection of Fundamental Rights:

The judgment provided a robust framework for the protection of fundamental rights. It ensured that amendments infringing on fundamental rights would be subject to judicial scrutiny and could be invalidated if they violated the basic structure. This protection is crucial for safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that the Constitution remains a charter of rights for all citizens.

5. Foundation for Future Jurisprudence:

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment laid the foundation for future constitutional jurisprudence in India. The basic structure doctrine has since been invoked in several important cases, including the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Waman Rao case (1981), and the Indira Gandhi election case (1975). These cases have reinforced the principles established in Kesavananda Bharati, ensuring the preservation of constitutional values and principles. Also Read Understanding the Indian Constitution: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law, Case Laws Every Law Student Must Know

Impact and Legacy

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment has had a profound and lasting impact on Indian constitutional law and governance. Its legacy can be seen in several key areas:

1. Constitutional Stability and Continuity:

The judgment has contributed to the stability and continuity of the Indian Constitution by ensuring that its fundamental features remain intact. This stability is essential for maintaining the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and promoting democratic governance.

2. Judicial Independence and Activism:

The judgment reinforced the independence of the judiciary and its role as the guardian of the Constitution. It empowered the judiciary to act as a check on parliamentary power, ensuring that amendments do not violate the basic structure. This principle has been crucial for maintaining the balance of power and upholding constitutional values.

3. Protection of Fundamental Rights:

The judgment provided a robust framework for the protection of fundamental rights. It ensured that amendments infringing on fundamental rights would be subject to judicial scrutiny and could be invalidated if they violated the basic structure. This protection is crucial for safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that the Constitution remains a charter of rights for all citizens.

4. Socioeconomic Reforms:

While the judgment imposed limitations on parliamentary power, it did not impede socioeconomic reforms. It allowed Parliament to pursue reforms within the framework of the Constitution, ensuring that such reforms did not violate its basic structure. This balance has enabled India to pursue progressive policies while preserving constitutional principles.

5. Influence on Global Constitutionalism:

The basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment has influenced constitutional jurisprudence in other countries. Courts in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and other jurisdictions have invoked the basic structure doctrine to protect their constitutions’ core principles from arbitrary amendments. This influence underscores the global significance of the judgment.

Criticisms and Controversies

Despite its landmark status, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment has not been without criticisms and controversies. Some of the key criticisms include:

1. Ambiguity of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

One of the main criticisms of the judgment is the ambiguity surrounding the basic structure doctrine. The judgment did not provide a definitive list of the Constitution’s basic features, leaving it to the judiciary’s discretion to determine what constitutes the basic structure in each case. This ambiguity has led to debates and differing interpretations in subsequent cases.

2. Judicial Overreach:

Critics argue that the basic structure doctrine represents an instance of judicial overreach, where the judiciary has assumed powers that should rightfully belong to the legislature. They contend that the doctrine undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the democratic process by allowing unelected judges to invalidate constitutional amendments passed by elected representatives.

3. Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

The judgment’s emphasis on balancing fundamental rights with directive principles has been a subject of debate. While the judgment sought to harmonize these two aspects of the Constitution, critics argue that it has sometimes led to conflicts and inconsistencies in judicial decisions. The challenge lies in ensuring that both fundamental rights and directive principles are given due consideration and weight in the judicial process.

4. Impact on Socioeconomic Reforms:

Some critics contend that the basic structure doctrine has impeded socioeconomic reforms by placing limitations on parliamentary power. They argue that the doctrine has sometimes been used to challenge progressive legislation aimed at promoting social justice and economic welfare. The challenge is to strike a balance between preserving constitutional principles and enabling necessary reforms.

Conclusion Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, providing a robust framework for the protection of fundamental rights and the preservation of the Constitution’s essential character. The judgment established the doctrine of basic structure, ensuring that certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain inviolable. It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and placed a significant limitation on parliamentary power.

The impact and legacy of the judgment are profound, contributing to constitutional stability, judicial independence, and the protection of fundamental rights. The judgment has influenced constitutional jurisprudence in other countries and remains a subject of study and debate in legal and academic circles.

Despite its criticisms and controversies, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment stands as a testament to the resilience and adaptability of the Indian Constitution. It ensures a balance between the need for constitutional adaptability and the protection of core constitutional principles, safeguarding the democratic and republican fabric of India. As India continues to evolve and face new challenges, the principles established in the Kesavananda Bharati case will remain vital in guiding the country’s constitutional

journey.