Case Analysis of Kesavananda Bharathi Vs. State of Kerala

ABSTRACT
The Kesavananda Bharati case represents a defining chapter in India’s constitutional evolution, where the Supreme Court decisively laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine. Through an expansive judgment spanning nearly 700 pages, the Court aimed to reconcile the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution with the imperative to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of citizens. This landmark decision established a delicate equilibrium between constitutional flexibility and the preservation of its core principles.

Delivered by a deeply divided yet thoughtful bench, the ruling introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine to prevent Parliament from altering the essential features of the Constitution. Through this doctrine, the Court addressed lingering uncertainties left by the earlier Golaknath case.

While the decision partially overruled Golaknath v. State of Punjab by restoring Parliament’s amending power, it simultaneously imposed limits to ensure that such amendments would not erode or eliminate the core values embodied in the Fundamental Rights. This case thus reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and secured the foundational principles of Indian democracy against arbitrary legislative encroachment.

INTRODUCTION

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, famously known as the “Fundamental Rights Case,” is one of the most critical judgments in the constitutional history of India. It marked a turning point in defining the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The case brought together six distinct writ petitions, all heard collectively under the lead title His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others v. State of Kerala. It was decided by the Supreme Court’s largest-ever Constitutional Bench, consisting of thirteen judges, making it an unprecedented moment in Indian judicial history.

The verdict, delivered on 24 April 1973, resulted in a narrow 7:6 majority and was spread across 703 pages, featuring 11 separate opinions. The bench included prominent legal minds, among them then-Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and the celebrated constitutional lawyer N.A. Palkhivala. The case was heard over an extraordinary period of 68 days, reflecting the depth and gravity of the constitutional questions at hand.

What emerged from this extensive hearing was the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial innovation meant to safeguard the fundamental features of the Constitution from being altered, even through constitutional amendments. This doctrine asserts that there are core principles such as democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights that form the foundation of the Constitution and must remain inviolable.

Through this doctrine, the Court struck a middle path between Parliament’s amending authority and the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. The judgment effectively overruled the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) decision, which had previously held that Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution. By doing so, the Court affirmed Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 but placed meaningful limitations to prevent any assault on the Constitution’s core identity.

Citation:AIR 1973 SC 1461

Petitioner: Kessvananda Bharti sripadagalvaru and others

Respondent: state of kerala nad others

Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973

Bench Composition:

• Majority (7): Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna, and B.K. Mukherjea
• Dissent (6): Justices A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Kesavananda Bharati case did not emerge in isolation but was the result of a prolonged power struggle between the judiciary and the legislature in post-independence India. This constitutional clash primarily revolved around the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution especially concerning Fundamental Rights.

The conflict began with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, where the Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights were beyond the reach of constitutional amendments. This judgment provoked a sharp reaction from the government, which viewed the ruling as a roadblock to its legislative and reformative agenda. In response, Parliament enacted a series of constitutional amendments intended to expand its powers and restrict the judiciary’s role in reviewing such amendments, particularly those affecting Fundamental Rights[1].

Amidst this constitutional tug-of-war, a petition was filed by Swami Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. The petitioner sought protection under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and challenged the state’s acquisition of the Mutt’s landholdings. On 21 March 1970, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court under Article 32, invoking the Court’s power to enforce Fundamental Rights.

Legal Framework Involved

• Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of such inconsistency[2].
• Article 368 provides the procedure and authority for amending the Constitution.

Important Precedents Leading to Kesavananda Bharati

Shankari prasad v. union of India 1951 AIR 458

This case challenged the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, on the ground that it infringed Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, affirming that Parliament had the power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights[3].

Sajjan singh v. state of Rajasthan 1965 Air 845

Here, the Court examined the 17th Amendment, which added land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule to shield them from judicial review. The challenge focused on whether the amendment affected Fundamental Rights and thus required a special procedure. The Supreme Court upheld its earlier ruling in Shankari Prasad, holding that amendments were not “law” under Article 13 and hence not subject to the limitations imposed by Fundamental Rights[4].

Golakhnath v. state of Punjab 1967 Air 1643

This case set the stage for the Kesavananda ruling. The Supreme Court, in a 6:5 majority, held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. The majority concluded that constitutional amendments fall under the definition of “law” under Article 13(2) and, therefore, could not infringe upon Fundamental Rights. The Court essentially took away Parliament’s amending power concerning Part III of the Constitution, thereby reversing its stance in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh[5].

The Golaknath decision led to considerable tension between the judiciary and the legislature. In the following years, Parliament responded with a flurry of constitutional amendments aimed at asserting its supremacy and bypassing judicial scrutiny. These included placing more laws into the Ninth Schedule, beyond the reach of courts, and bolstering its amendment powers under Article 368.

Against this turbulent constitutional backdrop, the Kesavananda Bharati case was heard by the largest-ever Constitutional Bench of 13 judges, tasked with resolving whether there existed any inherent limitations on the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution particularly whether there was a “basic structure” that could not be altered under any circumstances[6].

Marginal Heading and Presidential Assent

The marginal heading of Article 368 was revised from “Procedure for amendment to the Constitution” to “Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereof.” Additionally, it was made mandatory for the President to give assent to any constitutional amendment bill. The 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were all brought under judicial scrutiny[7].

Brief Facts of the Case

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Ender Mutta religious institution in Kerala’s Kasaragod district held some land in his name. On 1969, the Kerala government passed the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, which was empowered the state to acquire certain lands, including those held by religious institutions like the Mutt.

On 21st March 1970, Swami Bharati filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire and own property), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (management of religious affairs)[8].

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which limited Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights, the Parliament enacted the 24th (1971), 25th, and 29th (1972) Amendments in an attempt to override that ruling.

Issues Before the Court

1. Was the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 valid?
2. Was the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 valid?
3. To what extent can Parliament exercise its power to amend the Constitution?

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner contended that Parliament does not have unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution. Quoting Justice Mudholkar’s opinion in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, it was argued that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Article 31(2) was amended by replacing the word “compensation” with “amount”, weakening the protection of property rights. This amendment also severed the link between Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2).
• Article 31C was introduced to prioritize Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) over Fundamental Rights, rendering Articles 14, 19, and 31 inapplicable to such laws and limiting judicial review.
• The 29th Amendment placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act under the Ninth Schedule, insulating it from judicial challenge[9].

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that Parliament’s supremacy allows it to amend any part of the Constitution to fulfill the Directive Principles outlined in the Preamble.
• It claimed that socio-economic reforms require flexible constitutional amendment powers, free from judicial interference[10].

The Supreme Court’s Judgment

In a more then 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that although Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.

Key Takeaways:

• The 24th Amendment was held to be valid.
• The 25th Amendment was partly upheld:
• The first part, replacing “compensation” with “amount”, was upheld with the condition that the amount must not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
• The second part, which barred judicial review under Article 31C, was struck down as unconstitutional.
• The court overruled Golaknath partially by affirming Parliament’s amending power, but only if it respects the basic structure doctrine a principle introduced in this case[11].

The Basic Structure Doctrine:

• This doctrine holds that Parliament cannot amend those parts of the Constitution that form its essential features.
• The term “basic structure” was not explicitly defined, and the responsibility of interpreting it was left to future courts.
• Examples of basic features later identified include democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and separation of powers.

Critical Analysis

The majorities of judgment aimed to preserve the sanctity and core principles of the Constitution. By introducing such the basic structure doctrine, the Bench struck a balance between Parliament’s right and to amend and citizens’ right to constitutional protection.

The judgment was driven by the concern that unchecked parliamentary powers could undermine democratic governance. Thus, the doctrine serves as a constitutional safeguard against potential misuse of legislative authority.

It is notable that while over 30 amendments were introduced before this judgment, more than 150 amendments have been passed since 1951 yet the core values envisioned by the framers remain intact. In contrast, the US Constitution has seen only 27 amendments in over two centuries[12].

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case remains an enduring cornerstone in the evolution of constitutional law in India. Although the petitioner did not achieve a complete personal victory, the Supreme Court’s verdict in this case emerged as a monumental triumph for constitutionalism and the doctrine of limited government. By introducing and upholding the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court decisively drew a line that even the Parliament could not cross, thereby ensuring that the core ideals embedded in the Constitution such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, judicial independence, and fundamental rights remain protected from political or legislative encroachment.

This landmark judgment reinforced the idea that the Constitution is not merely a document subject to the whims of the majority in power, but a living charter that reflects the enduring aspirations and foundational values of the nation. The fierce intellectual advocacy of Nani Palkhivala played a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this case. His articulate defense of constitutional morality and democratic principles before the 13-judge bench the largest ever constituted in Indian legal history left an indelible mark on Indian jurisprudence.

In its broader implications, the judgment acts as a vigilant guardian against authoritarianism and legal overreach. It provides a vital framework within which the balance of power is maintained, and it ensures that essential features of the Constitution remain immune to temporary political pressures or populist impulses. The legacy of the Kesavananda Bharati case continues to inspire legal scholars, courts, and citizens alike, serving as a potent reminder that democracy thrives not only through popular mandate but through the unflinching protection of constitutional values.

Reference(S):

Books:

1. Jain, M.P. (2008). Indian Constitutional Law (5th ed.). This foundational legal text provides a comprehensive overview of constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and legislative frameworks in India.
2. Seervai, H.M. (2015). Constitution of India (4th ed.). Recognized for its analytical depth, this book offers critical insights into constitutional doctrines and the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in India.
3. Basu, D.D. Introduction to the Constitution of India. A widely-referenced introductory text that explains the key features and principles embedded in the Indian Constitution.
4. Kashyap, Subhash. Concise Encyclopedia of the Indian Constitution. This concise reference work presents definitions and explanations of essential constitutional terms, doctrines, and historical developments.
5. Panda, J.N. Constitutional Law of India. This book delves into the interpretation of constitutional provisions and key judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional law.
6. Bibliography

Web Articles:

1. Asthana, S. (2021). Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). iPleaders. Retrieved August 13, 2021, from [https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/].
   – Provides a structured summary and implications of the landmark Supreme Court case that established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
2. Lakdawala, H. (2021). Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Bond Between Palkhivala [https://www.livelaw.in/columns/kesavananda-bharati-case-friendship-between-nani-palkhivala-hm-seervai-167083]
   – This article delves into the personal and professional relationship between two legal stalwarts, Nani Palkhivala and H.M. Seervai, who played pivotal roles in the Kesavananda Bharati case. It captures how their mutual respect transcended legal rivalry.
3. Bansal, L. (2021). Judicial Insight into the Basic Structure Doctrine. Latest Laws. Accessed August 13, 2021, from [https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/judicial-analysis-of-basicstructure-of-the-constitution-by-lakshay-bansal]
   – The author offers a critical examination of how the judiciary has interpreted and upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine over the years, underlining its importance in preserving the Constitution’s core identity.
4. Wikipedia contributors. (2021). Basic Structure Doctrine. Wikipedia. Accessed August 13, 2021, from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine]
   – This page outlines the development and significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine in India, detailing its judicial origins and listing key Supreme Court cases that have shaped its evolution.
5. Law Times Journal. (2021). Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – A Case Overview. Accessed August 13, 2021, from [http://lawtimesjournal.in/kesavananda-bharti-vs-state-of-kerala-case-summary/]
   – Provides a brief and accessible summary of the Kesavananda Bharati case, including the constitutional issues raised and the landmark ruling that introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
6. Roychoudhury, S. (2021). Comprehensive Analysis of Kesavananda Bharati Case (AIR 1973 SC 1461). Law Corner. Accessed August 13, 2021, from [https://lawcorner.in/a-detailed-analysis-of-kesavananda-bharati-case/]
   – Presents an in-depth exploration of the case, focusing on the constitutional arguments, judicial opinions, and long-lasting impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on Indian democracy.
7. India Corporate Law Blog. (2021). Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure principal. [https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2017/09/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-kerala-basic-structure-doctrine/]
   – Reviews the constitutional significance of the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, particularly from a legal policy and governance perspective, emphasizing its role in ensuring that certain fundamental constitutional values remain unalterable.

[1] Admin. (2024, March 26). Kesavananda Bharati case – An overview of the case and the Supreme Court judgement. BYJUS. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements/

[2] Zubay, G., Chambers, D. A., & Cheong, L. C. (1970). Research Article 13: Cell-Free Studies on the Regulation of the lac Operon. Cold Spring Harbor Monograph Archive, 01, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1101/087969100.1.375

[3] Nelson, M. J. (2018). Indian Basic Structure jurisprudence in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Reconfiguring the constitutional politics of religion. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 13(2), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2018.18

[4] Manupatra Academy. (n.d.). http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0052_1964

[5] Manupatra Academy. (n.d.-b). http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0029_1967

[6] (Manupatra Academy, n.d.-b)

[7] Barak, A. (2011). Unconstitutional constitutional amendments. Israel Law Review, 44(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700018082

[8] Manupatra. (n.d.). Articles – Manupatra. https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/The-Kesavnanda-Bharati-Case-The-Untold-Story-of-Struggle-for-Supremacy-by-Supreme-Court-and-Parliament-[by-TR-Andhyarujina-Universal-Law-Publishing-Company-New-Delhi-2012-]

[9] (Manupatra, n.d.)

[10] Manupatra (n.d.)

[11] Krishnaswamy (2010)

[12] Krishnaswamy, S. (2010). Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A study of the Basic Structure Doctrine. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB0086426X