Authored By: Choudhary Narendra Rupalal
Parul University
- Case Title & Citation
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).
- Court Name & Bench
Supreme Court of India(SC)
Bench type : Constitutional Bench (13-Judge Bench)
- It was the largest bench ever constituted in the history of the Supreme Court of India.
- The matter involved substantial questions of interpretation of the Constitution under Article 145(3), which requires a minimum of five judges for constitutional interpretation.
- Due to the importance of the issues—especially regarding the scope of Parliament’s amending power—a 13-judge bench was formed.
Name of the Judges:
- Chief Justice S. M. Sikri (Chief Justice of India)
- Justice J. M. Shelat
- Justice K. S. Hegde
- Justice A. N. Grover
- Justice A. K. Mukherjea
- Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- Justice H. R. Khanna
- Justice A. N. Ray
- Justice D. G. Palekar
- Justice K. K. Mathew
- Justice M. H. Beg
- Justice S. N. Dwivedi
- Justice Y. V. Chandrachud
- Date OF Judgement
24 April 1973
The judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 24 April 1973, after 68 days of arguments before the 13-judge Constitutional Bench.
- Parties Involved
- Petitioner
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru
- Head (Muttadhipati) of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kasaragod district, Kerala.
- He filed the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and subsequent constitutional amendments.
- Respondents
State of Kerala
- Defended the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (as amended).
Union of India
- Defended the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments.
- Facts of the Case
The facts of Kesavananda Bharati v. need to be understood. State of Kerala in a more inclusive constitutional and political context. Based on a property rights controversy, the dispute became a landmark constitutional issue on the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. Things happened the way they did as follows:
1.The Kerala land reforms act of 1963 was enacted.
In 1963, the State of Kerala enacted Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The aim of the legislation was the implementation of agrarian reforms by:
Imposing limitations on land tenures, sells superfluous land to the landless, eliminating the middle-men and tenancy systems.
Religious institutions, which owned agricultural land, were also one of the notable landowners who were affected by the Act.
2.Amendment of 1969 to the Kerala land reforms Act.
In an attempt to strengthen land ceiling regulations and make the law even tighter, the Kerala Legislature changed the 1963 Act in 1969.
Such developments had a devastating impact on the size of land that religious organizations could obtain like the Edneer Mutt, which was a Hindu organization in Kerala-based Kasaragod district.
3.Edneer Mutt’s situation
The manager of the assets and religious affairs of the Edneer Mutt was His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the head of the Mutt (Muttadhipati).
The new law of reform of the land:
reduced the amount of land that the Mutt could hold.
imposed restrictions upon its farm lands, threatened to destroy the financial basis of the religious organization.
The petitioner felt that these restrictions inhibited:
Article 19(1) (f) and article 31 on property rights.
Article 25 the freedom of religion.
Equal rights under Article 14.
Wrrit Petition under Article 32 (1970) is Filed.
In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati approached the Supreme Court of India under the 32 nd Amendment of the Constitution.
4.Initially, the petition disputed:
The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 is constitutional according to the amendment which was made in 1969.
the inclusion of the Act (unless otherwise stated) in the Ninth Schedule.
The primary areas of contention here were the freedom of religion and the property rights.
5.History: 1951-1967 Constitutional War.
The ruling of the petition had already been preceded by the Supreme Court ruling similar cases:
A.Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
- Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
In Golak Nath case, the Court held that any alteration of fundamental rights by Parliament was not possible. This caused a constitutional clash between the parliament and the court.
The 24 th amendment of the constitution in 1971.
The 24 th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 was enacted by Parliament as a response to Golak Nath. The following change:
made it very clear that Parliament is entitled to amend any part of the Constitution, even the Fundamental Rights, stipulated that the President should be signing off bills that concerned changes in the constitution, amended Article 368 to provide that the Parliament was able to alter the Constitution.
It directly influenced the pending Kesavananda case.
The 25 th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971.
Parliament promptly passed the 25 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 which:
amended Article 31 by replacing the word compensation by amount.
limited appellate judicial review over case concerning the law of property acquisition, placed certain basic rights with a minor part in comparison to the Directive Principles.
This amendment would restrict the judicial review and more so, diminish the rights of property.
A 29 th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972.
In 1972, the Parliament passed the 29th Constitutional Amendment Act.
modified the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969 to be included in the Ninth Schedule.
tried to section 31B to protect it against judicial review.
This move directly concerns the continued struggle on Kesavananda Bharati.
Extension of the Case’s Scope
Considering these constitutional revisions, the petitioner changed his writ petition to challenge:
The 24th Amendment’s legality,
The 25th Amendment’s legality,
the 29th Amendment’s legality.
So what began as a challenge to a state law on land reform became a constitutional challenge of Art 368 of the Constitution which grants Parliament the power to amend laws.
- Issues Raised
The constitutional issues that were considered by the Supreme Court pertained to the following:
- Amendment 368 Adjusting the Power Scope.
The degree to which Parliament can amend the Constitution, as envisaged in Article 368, without inherent limitations or not.
- The Immoderate Changeability of Fundamental Rights.
Whether the Parliament is allowed to alter, limit, or abolish the fundamental rights as given in Part III of the Constitution.
The 24 th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 is valid.
Whether this amendment had the effect of excluding any constitutional amendments within the confines of Article 13 and lawfully giving unrestricted amending powers to Parliament.
The 25 th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 is valid.
Whether the restriction of judicial review and the substitution of amount with compensation were valid.
The legitimacy of the Directive Principles over the certain Fundamental Rights.
The validity of the 29 th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972.
The question as to whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act was entirely exempt to judicial review by its insertion in the Ninth Schedule.
- Implied Limitations
assuming that Parliament has a power to alter the Constitution and is not bound by any restrictions whether express or implicit.
The supremacy of the Constitution against the sovereignty of parliament.
Unless India follows the parliamentary supremacy or constitutional sovereignty.
The development of the Basic Structure Doctrine came up afterwards as a consequence of these issues.
- Arguments Of the Parties
- Petitioner claims (Keshvananda Bharati).
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru challenged both the constitutional amendments as well as Kerala Land Reforms Act. These were the central areas of disagreement:
Amending power is limited.
The petitioner argued that Article 368 did not give absolute substantive authority, but, instead, merely provided the procedure of the amendment. The basic aspects of the Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament since it is a creation of it.
The most important thing is the Constitution.
The case was that the Parliament is not supreme, the Constitution is. Parliament can thus not assume an unlimited right to amend any and every provision.
And there are sacred basic rights.
Golak Nath v., 1985, based on the reasoning. The petitioner, State of Punjab (1967) argued that fundamental rights were a part and parcel of the Constitution and could not be limited or destroyed by constitutional amendment.
Article 13 deals with the Amendments to the Constitution.
It was argued that Article 13 (2) establishes constitutional amendments as law. Any change that deprives one of essential rights would be void, then.
Destruction vs. Amendment
The meaning of the word amend is to alter not to abolish or destroy. Parliament is not able to alter the basic framework, democratic character, and basic features of the Constitution.
The 24 th, 25th and 29 th amendments are unconstitutional.
The 24 th Amendment aimed at providing unrestricted powers.
The 25 th Amendment minimized property rights and judicial review.
By placing statutes in the Ninth Schedule, the 29 th Amendment unfairly sheltered them against judicial review.
- Submissions by the Respondents ( Union of India and State of Kerala).
The respondents supported legitimacy of the changes and the authority of Parliament.
The Strength of Final Amendment.
Article 368 provides the government with the power to amend any provision in the Constitution including Fundamental Rights clause, according to the argument.
Article 13 Does Not Take into Account Amendments as a Law.
To prove that constitutional changes are not law in the meaning of Article 13 and cannot be repealed on the basis of a violation of fundamental rights, the respondents referred to the previous decisions such as Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh.
The authority of Parliament
To achieve socio-economic objectives particularly land reforms it was argued that the power to amend the Constitution must be vested in Parliament, which is the voice of the people.
The need of social justice.
According to the administration, to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy, land redistribution and agrarian reforms were required. Restraining Parliament would avert the social and economic change.
No Inferred Restrictions
The Constitution does not particularly restrict the modifying power. Consequently, the implied restrictions such as basic structure limitations cannot be put in place by the judiciary.
The Validity of the Ninth Schedule Protection.
The respondents stated that laws contained in the Ninth Schedule of Article 31B are closed to judicial review and must be obeyed.
- Judgement
Judgment Date: April 24, 1973
Strength in 13-Judge Constitutional Bench.
7:6 in favor
The Supreme Court ruled that with a thin majority worked out 7:6 overruled a landmark decision that has taken a significant role in Indian constitutional law.
The Amendment of Power of Parliament to the Constitution.
The Court decided that:
Article 368 grants the Parliament with wide powers to modify any provision of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights clause.
This authoritative capacity is limited, however.
Parliament cannot change, abolish, or add to the so-called Basic Structure or basic elements of the Constitution.
This idea is referred to as the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Validity of Constitutional Amendments.
(a) 24 th Amendment to the Constitution of 1971.
Validity upheld.
The Court stated that Parliament is capable of altering the basic rights.
(b) The 25 th Amendment of the Constitution 1971.
Upheld in part.
This provision whereby amount was changed to compensation was affirmed.
The clause or exemption of judicial review was held to be unlawful.
(c) 29 th Amendment of the Constitution of 1972.
Accepted.
However, the Court clarified that the Basic Structure test applies to the statutes contained in the Ninth Schedule.
Unravelling the Last Moves.
Golak Nath v. The ruling overruled State of Punjab (1967) on the basis that Fundamental Rights could be changed by Parliament provided that it complied with the Basic Structure.
Creating an important Principle.
The Parliament may amend the Constitution, however, it cannot destroy the main components and design.
This was a historic limitation on the power of Parliament to make modifications, which was imposed by the Supreme Court even though the petitioner partly prevailed in setting aside the amendments.
The decision that is still considered to be one of the most important constitutional decisions made by India practically created a constitutional primacy over a legislative sovereignty.
- Ratio Decidendi / Legal Reasoning
In this case, the Supreme Court determined the following ratio, or binding legal norm:
Article 368 grants Parliament the wide but limited power to make Constitutional amendments; it may not alter, void or repeal the basic structure or features of the document.
The Ratio’s Definition
The Power to Amend contains Fundamental Rights.
The Court decided that Parliament may amend any clause in the Constitution including Part III (Fundamental Rights).
Suggested Limitations on amending authority.
Although Article 368 authorizes the amending power, the Parliament cannot in any way jeopardize the very essence of the Constitution.
What “Amend” means
The amend term is used to refer to modifying or restructuring the basic format of the Constitution, and not repealing, destroying, or emasculating it.
The Doctrine of the Basic Structure.
Some of the key aspects that comprise the core structure and could not be altered include constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and democratic government.
Fundamental Legal Concept
As a product of the Constitution, the Parliament cannot exercise its amending power to weaken the very pillars of the Constitution as this is ultimate.
The Indian constitutional jurisprudence was based upon this theory which continues to inform how the constitutional changes are assessed by the judiciary.
- Conclusion
The decision in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. in Indian legal history. The case of state of Kerala (1973) is a turning point in the constitution. The Supreme Court stroked two conflicting constitutional concepts: the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the primacy of the Constitution itself and adjudicated it with a very narrow majority of 7:6.
The Court stated that the discretion granted by Article 368 to Parliament to amend any article, including a Fundamental right, is very wide but it stipulated a significant limitation that the Parliament cannot alter or abolish the basic framework of the Constitution. It is also known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, and it ensures that political or legislative efforts will not change the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The decision supported the idea that India follows constitutional primacy as opposed to complete sovereignty in the law and expanded judicial oversight. The Court preserved the unity and integrity of the constitutional framework through protecting the foundational aspects such as judiciary autonomy, federalism, secularism, democracy, rule of law and the separation of powers.
The doctrine has also remained an effective guard against constitutional abuse, although it has been criticized as ambiguous in definition and apparently judicial activism. It has been maintained and expanded on subsequent cases, making it a fundamental part of the Indian constitutional doctrine.
Basically, Kesavananda Bharati ensures that the structural foundations and the basic tenets of the Constitution are untouchable despite the fact that it is adaptable and dynamic. It is one of the proofs of the role of the judiciary in maintaining the principles of democracy and constitutional rule.
