Authored By: Geetanjali Dikshit
Modi Law College, Kota
Case title and citation
Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973)
Citation: AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1461,1972 4 SCC 225
Court Name and Bench
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 13- judges
Judges: S.M. Sikri, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, K.K. Mathew, K.S. Hedge, M.H. Beg, P. Jagnmohan Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud
Date of Judgement:
The judgment of this case was delivered on 24/04/1973
Parties involved:
Petitioner
Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalavaru and Ors.
Swami Kesavananda Bharti was the head (Mathadhipati) of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution of Kerala.
Respondent
State of Kerala and Anr.
INTRODUCTION
The constitution of India was saved on 24 April 1973, when the guiding light of India was cemented. All this happened due to the monumental judgment of Kesavananda Bharti v. The State of Kerala case. The judgment of this case was declared by the largest bench, which was 13 judges, defeating the initial record of 11-judge benches in the Golakhnath judgement. This case helped to alleviate serious problems in running the country, which were addressed by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. During post-independence India, it was the most significant case that established democracy in the country. This case is also known as the country’s fundamental rights case and basic structure doctrine case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Kesavananda Bharti was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, which was a monastic religious institution located in the district of Kasaragod in Kerala. Bharti owned some land on Mutt. The state government of Kerala passed the Land Reform Amendment Act in 1969, in which it was stated that the government could take some of the land which belonged to the Mutt.
After this, in March 1970, Bharti moved to the Supreme Court under section 23 of the Indian Constitution to enforce his constitutional rights, which guaranteed him under the;
Article 25: right to practice and propagate religion
Article 26: right to manage religious affairs
Article 14: right to equality
Article 19(1) (f): freedom to acquire property
Article 31: compulsory acquisition of property
Although the petition was under consideration by the Supreme Court, the state government of Kerala enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act 1971.
The argument made by the petitioner brought various amendments that parliament took into effect in the case of Golaknath V. State of Punjab. The petitioner had also challenged some particular constitutional amendments, which were the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments, with regard to their validity.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
To understand the case, it was necessary to understand other reference cases. So let us start with Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and the State of Bihar, 1951 SC. 458. In this case, the first constitutional amendment was made in 1951, stating that it violated the fundamental rights given in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Part 3rd of the Indian Constitution can be amended under Article 368, as part of being Part 3rd the fundamental rights could be amended.
Another case law is Sajjan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1965 AIR 845. In this case, Sankari Prasad’s judgment reiterated that the legislature can amend any part of the Indian Constitution, including fundamental rights, as per Article 368. However, some judges, Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar, disagreed and introduced the basic structure doctrine.
In the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643 some changes were seen when this case was declared. The judgment of this case was passed by the Supreme Court where it was declared that the fundamental rights of the Indian constitution which come under part 3rd of the constitution cannot be amended by any of the governments.
In the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India 1970 AIR 564 bank nationalisation case, the Supreme Court declared that the Bank Nationalisation Act, 1969, is invalid but gave rights to parliament to nationalize banks.
Another case was Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India 1971 AIR 530, in which the Supreme Court went against the government’s presidential order, which later resulted in the abolition of privy purses which was tried by the government.
From all these cases we can understand how it started. Here the government became aggrieved because these judgments restricted their powers or authorities. In the era of 1970, the government of India started batting by introducing various constitutional amendments like the 24th in which the parliament could amend any part of the constitution, the 25th the property rights removed from the part 3rd that is fundamental rights of India, the 26th abolition of the privy purse, 29th two Kerala land reforms which were happened in the year of 1969 and 1971, which helped them to overturn the judgements of Golaknath case and it similar character. By all these amendments the government had bestowed their unrestricted powers to repeal and amend fundamental rights of the Indian constitution.
ISSUES RAISED
The petitioner has raised issues in the court that were wider than the original scope of the petition. The court dealt with the following questions:
Were the constitutional amendments were valid which were the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments valid?
Whether the power of amending the constitution is unrestricted or whether the parliament exercise this power, and amends the fundamental rights which is ambit of Article 368 of the Indian constitution?
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES
Arguments presented by both parties are as mentioned below:
PETITIONER:
The petitioner of the case had argued that the parliament could not interfere with the structure of the Indian constitution and the fundamental rights are also contained in the basic structure of the Indian constitution. Also stated that this authority to do such amendments was not arbitrary and unlimited.
He stated that the Constitution was drafted to protect the citizens from future tyranny and by inserting the 25th amendment this tyranny by the way of impugned Article 31C, which will give the authority to the parliament or legislature to decide the freedom of citizens.
To support their argument they stated that Justice Mudholkar and Hidayatullah’s ideas of basic structure which he had held in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan that the constitution could not make any changes by altering the basic structure of the Indian constitution by any amendments through the parliament.
He had claimed that his fundamental rights had been violated under Article 19(1) (f) of the Indian Constitution.
RESPONDENT:
The respondent in the case had argued that the parliament has supremacy. Where they have stated that they have the power to abrogate and alter the fundamental rights which can be speech, religion, and the formation of any union and associations.
They further argue that the rule of democracy could be replaced with a one-party system if the parliament wants, because it has unlimited powers.
To support their argument they cited the Re Berubari Union case of 1960 in which they claimed that the authority of parliament must not be limited because they need the power to fulfil social and economic obligations.
FINAL JUDGEMENT
The date of judgement was the 24th of April, 1973 which was announced by 13 judge benches. The names of those judges are mentioned below:
S.M. Sikri, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shetal, K.K. Mathew, K.S. Hedge, M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud, A.N. Grover.
Among them, some justices were nonconformists like YV. Chandrachud, AN. Ray, DG. Palekar, KK. Mathew, MH. Beg, SN. Dwivedi. And four judges have not signed the final judgement whose name was AN. Ray KK. Mathew, MH. Beg, SN. Dwivedi.
The majority of the judgments held the doctrine of basic structure, in which they stated that although the parliament’s power is unrestricted in the matter of amending the constitution it is subject to the limitation of the doctrine of basic structure which cannot be altered. It was also held that the term amend does not constitute the ambit of the basic structure of the Constitution and the amendments would be subject to a test of basic structure. The term basic structure is not clearly defined and is held open to interpretation in the future judgment of the courts.
The 24th Amendment was held valid whereas the 25th Amendment was held to be invalid and its parts were named intra vires and the second one was ultra vires. Some basic features were also decided which were the separation of powers, the balance between fundamental rights and directive principle of state policy, judicial review, the supremacy of the Indian constitution, and independence of the judiciary, etc.
CONCLUSION
The judicial system of India has been designed so that it gives precedents to the judiciary. By making fundamental rights unamendable and creating unreachability for the parliament this verdict not only saves the present scenario but also the future judgments that could be set in the upcoming era, by giving this sort of judgment the judiciary system is worthy of admiration, although it was achieved by a narrow majority.
If the judgement saved the democracy of India it also protected us from the oligarchy and dictatorship, which would take us to the previous stage which can create a huge tyranny and colonial period for the nation.
This case judgement also presented us with the main essence of our nation, how our judicial system and legislature are different bodies with their respective powers and how they perform checks and balances so that no one can use unlimited power, so that it may not threaten the main essence of this country.
