Authored By: Divya
Central Law College, University of Lucknow
CASE SUMMARY ON LEGAL LANDMARK
CASE OF:
KESWANANDA BHARTI SRIPADAGALVARU
V/S
STATE OF KERALA
(1973 4 SCC 225)
BRIEF INTRODUCTION:
There are many cases in our history which is very relevant for upcoming Judicial Decisions of India and, they play very important role in respect Judicial functioning and Proceedings. Out of various Landmark cases in India, the most important is KESWANANDA BHARTI V/S STATE OF KERALA (1973). This case is the Highly Landmark Judgement case in Our History of India. There are various Amendments are seen in the Constitution by this Landmark Case. It is the longest case of India. The Proceedings of this case was running about 68 Days, and there are more than seventy Constitution of Different Countries were become comparison, and the Judgement of this case is about Seven hundred and three pages. of India. The Proceeding of this case is the most Important case in allover History.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
After the Independence of India, State focused on Social and Economic Development of their area. After making the Indian Constitution, the State gives the Different Fundamental Rights to citizens and then citizens of India realized these rights such as Right to Equality is them Own right and they can claim. But at that time of 1970, the various resources and means of Production are given to only certain people in any area, and then the State realized that the Income of Wealth gradually declined. For the prevention of this Limitation of Wealth, all the States are struggling to change that system of existing Laws. As same as, the State Government of Kerala also initiated the step to change. The Kerala Government passed the Kerala Land Reforms A, 1963 to change the Zamindari System, Land Ownership, and Tenancy Laws of Kerala. Now, the Land Reforms Act imposed the Restrictions on the citizens such as How much Land can be owned by any Particular person.
Basically, these reforms restrict the property of Citizens. So, the State Government of Kerala acquired the Land of Edneer Mutt of Kasorgarh District of Kerala by this Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963.
By this takeover of Government, the income of Mutt becomes Slowdown, and all the Livelihood of People of Mutt have come in Problem. So, the head of Edneer Mutt Shri Keswananda Bharti Ji was Challenged to this Land Reforms Act, 1963 and this case of Keswananda Bharti was presented by the Justice Nanabhai Palkiwala in Supreme Court. Keswananda Bharti filed the Writ Petition in Supreme Court in March 1970 against this Land Reform Act, 1963.
He said that land Reforms Act violates his Article 14(Equality before Law), Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property), Article 25(Freedom of Conscience and free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion), and Article 26(Freedom to manage religious affairs).
LEGAL ISSUES:
At that time, there were many cases seen in Supreme Court such as Bank Nationalization Case, Madhav Rao SC India case, Golaknath case. By these Cases, we get to know that, at that time, there are two parties of our Nation were Struggling and that Parties are Supreme Court of India and Parliament. Parliament said that, according to Article 368, Parliament have that power to amend the Constitution and their Procedure, but Supreme Court of India has not satisfied by this Procedure. So, in the case of Golaknath v/s State of Punjab, Supreme Court of India restrict the amending power of Parliament. After that, Parliament came to the 24th Amendment Act to remove the Restrictions of the Supreme Court on it. These are: 24th Amendment Act(Parliament has power to amend any Provision of Constitution), 25th Amendment Act (Right to Property can be curtailed by the Government of India), 29th Amendment Act (Land Reforms Act Under 9th Schedule).
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED:
There are two main questions are arising by this case:
First was, Can Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights? And the second question was, If yes, to what extent?
Petitionar said various Arguments, such as,
> Power Under Article 368 is limited So, the Parliament cannot change any provision of Constitution of India.
>Fundamental Rights to protect citizen freedom but Petitioner said 24th and 25th Amendment Act curtailed and imposed Restrictions on Citizens.
The Arguments which were presented by the Respondent sides, such as:
> Parliament has unlimited and Absolute Powers to Amend the
Constitution by this every State always better their Social and Economic Conditions. So, there was no Restrictions on Parliament powers.
>Parliament has the right to put restrictions on Fundamental Rights of Citizen.
COURT REASONING AND JUDGEMENT:
In this case,, the largest bench evehelds thirteen Judges Bench. By this case, the Judgement of Golaknath v/s Stae of Punjab was overruled in which was said that, as said that, Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights. And also said that the 24th Amendment Act was held valid by this case of Keswananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala.
Supreme Court said that, Parliament has the power to amend the Provisions of Constitution but Parliament cannot interfere with basic features of constitution. In this case, 25th and 29th amendment act held valid. Any law which is under 9th schedule, if they violates basic features of Constitution then the Judicial Review of that laws can held. In 24th April, 1973 the landmark Judgement of Keswananda Bharti introduced the basic structure of Doctrine and said In this case, 25th and 29th amendment act held valid. Any law wIn this case, 25th and 29th amendment act held valid. Any law which is under 9th schedule, if they violates basic features of Constitution then the Judicial Review of that laws can held. In 24th April, 1973 the landmark Judgement of Keswananda. Bharti introduced the basic structure of Doctrine and said, these features indicate and recognized in this Not Exhaustive List and by many upcoming Judgements the various features also involve with this feature of Not Exhaustive list.
CONCLUSION:
In Indian History, this case is very Significant and the Judicial Decision of this case also very relevant to another cases. This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine in India to Preventing the legislature from altering its Fundamental Framework. This case define the Powers of Parliament and restrictions on Parliament Power. This is the case in which the Fundamental Rights of Citizens becomes Secured and potect such Article 25 and Article 19(1)(f) now Article 300(a). The Basic Structure of Doctrine repeatedly checks the Parliamentary Power in India. And the most Notable effect is, in 2015, the Supreme Court Struck down the NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission) Act by using this Basic Structure of Doctrine.
REFERENCE(S):
>Wikipedia (https://enwikipedia.org)
>eCourts (https://judgements.ecourts.gov.in)
>Indian Kanoon (https://indiankanoon.org)
>Supreme Court of India (https://www.sci.gov.in)
>Constitution of India (Bare Act)
>You tube video (https://learn.finology…)
>Youtube Video( Khan Global Studies)
(www.youtube.com/@khanglobalstudies)
