Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru and Others v. State of Keralaand Others

1. Case Title and Citation 

Full Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru and Others v. State of Kerala  and Others 

Official Citation: AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225 

2. Court Name and Bench 

Court Name: Honourable Supreme Court of India 

Bench Type: Largest Constitutional Bench in Indian history 13-Judge Constitution Bench 

Names of Judges (Head): S.M. Sikri (Chief Justice), H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde,  A.N. Ray, Y.V. Chandrachud, et al. 

3. Date of Judgment 

April 24, 1973 

4. Parties Involved 

– Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt (a religious institution in  Kerala), challenged land reform laws affecting the mutt’s property.  

– Respondent: State of Kerala, defending constitutional amendments and land reform  legislation. 

5. Facts of the Case 

The petitioner, the head of a religious institution (monastery) in Kerala, filed a writ  petition challenging the amendments to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, seeking to  take possession of his land. The challenge was based on the violation of fundamental  rights, including the right to property and the right to manage religious affairs (Articles  14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31). 

While the petition was pending, Parliament enacted three important constitutional  amendments:

1. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. 
2. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. 
3. The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1972, which inserted the Kerala  Land Reforms Act into the Ninth Schedule to protect it from judicial review. 

The petitioner subsequently amended the petition to challenge the constitutional  validity of all three amendments. 

6. Issues Raised 

• The main issues before the Court were: 
• What is the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution? • Does the amending power extend to the abrogation or taking away of the  fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution? 
• The validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-ninth  Amendments) Act. 

7. Arguments of the Parties 

Petitioner/Appellant: 

• Parliament’s power under Article 368 is limited. 
• Parliament cannot use its amending power to abrogate fundamental rights or  alter the fundamental structure of the Constitution. 
• The challenged Article 31C (added by the 25th Amendment) is invalid because it  takes away the basic freedoms of citizens.  

Respondent/Defendant (Union of India): 

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is absolute. 
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental  rights, to address socio-economic challenges. 
• Parliament can also establish one-party rule or form any type of government  without repealing the Constitution. 

8. Judgment/Final Decision 

The Court, by a 7:6 majority, upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, but  also imposed a necessary limit. 

24th Amendment: Declared valid. 

25th Amendment:

Section 2 (amendment regarding “amount” instead of “compensation” in Article 31):  Declared valid. 

Section 3 (Inclusion of Article 31C): 

The first part (laws implementing Article 39(b) or 39(c) are immune from challenge  under Articles 14, 19, or 31) was held valid. 

The second part (making the legislative declaration definitive, thereby excluding judicial  review) was held invalid because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. 

29th Amendment: Declared valid, but whether specific Kerala Acts included in the Ninth  Schedule violate the basic structure was left open to judicial review. 

The petitions were referred to a Constitution Bench for disposal in accordance with  settled law. 

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

The majority decision established the doctrine of basic structure as the main limit on  Parliament’s amending power. 

The power to amend is not absolute: The power to amend the Constitution, granted by  Article 368, is subject to an implied limitation. Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament  cannot use its amending power to alter, abrogate, or abolish the basic structure or  framework of the Constitution. 

Fundamental Rights: The Court overturned the Golak Nath decision, holding that  Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights, but under the Basic Structure  Doctrine. 

Constitutional Interpretation: The Preamble, which includes the Constitution’s noble  vision and basic features (e.g., ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic,’ ‘Justice, Social,  Economic, and Political’), is crucial and guides the interpretation of the amending  power. Eliminating any basic feature is rewriting the Constitution rather than merely  amending it. 

10. Conclusion/Observation 

The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most important decisions in Indian  constitutional law, establishing the supremacy of the Constitution over Parliament’s  amending power. It provided a permanent check against the possibility of an elected  majority eroding the Constitution’s core democratic, secular, and federal features,  thereby safeguarding the fundamental identity of the Indian Republic. The doctrine of  basic structure is the last example of judicial review in India.