Kesavananda Bharathi Vs. State of Kerala

Abstract

[1]The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Keshvananda Bharati, which is a landmark case, clarified the fundamental framework doctrine of the Constitution. The case overturned the ruling in Golaknath v State of Punjab, which limited Parliament’s power to change the Constitution. The 700-page decision was very unusual and reflective, and it provided a compromise for both Parliament’s freedom to change legislation and citizens’ right to protect their Fundamental Rights.

The Bench established the Basic Structure Doctrine in order to defend the rights of both Indian people and the Parliament. The Basic Structure Doctrine was created to guarantee that people’s rights under the Fundamental Rights should not be taken away by changes.

Keywords: Constitution, Basic Structure, Fundamental, Parliament,

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE

Case Name : Kesavananda Bharathi Vs. State of Kerala

Equivalent Citation: AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225

Constitution Involved: Constitution of India

Important Articles Involved: Articles 13, 368, 31C

Date of Judgement: 24/04/1973

Bench: 13 JUDGE BENCH

A BRIEF OVERVIEW
[2]One of the most important and historic rulings from the Supreme Court of India is the Kesavananda Bharati Case, popularly referred to as the Fundamental Rights Case. In India’s legal history, the case is considered a turning point. In this instance, “His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others v. State of Kerala” was heard after six different writ petitions were consolidated. The highest-ranking constitution court to date, consisting of 13 judges, heard the issue and rendered a 7:6 ruling in 11 different decisions. The 703-page ruling contains the views of 93 eminent legal experts, including S.M. Sikri, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, and attorneys like N.A. Palkhiwala. After a 68-day hearing, the principle of democracy was upheld. And because of both of these features, it is opulent and majestic. The “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which was developed as a result of the case,was based on the idea that some fundamental ideas that form the foundation of every constitution are inviolable and unchangeable.[3]To protect the rights of the Indian people and the Parliament, the Bench created the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Bench used this strategy to handle the unresolved issues in Golaknath’s case. In this case, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab verdict was overturned, restricting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. In order to guarantee that changes do not deny individuals their rights as stipulated by the Fundamental Rights, the Basic Structure Doctrine was created.

[4]HISTORY OF THE CASE
The history of this case was shaped by ongoing disputes between the system’s legislature and judiciary, not in a single day, week, or month. All of this started when the Supreme Court ruled in the Golaknath Case and other judgements where it sought to preserve the sanctity of the Fundamental Rights by stating that they could not be changed.

The Supreme Court’s democratic and constitutionally-based acts infuriated the government. Four amendments were passed, limiting the Supreme Court’s judicial review power and granting Parliament complete authority to amend and handle issues pertaining to fundamental rights.

According to Article 13, all laws that violate or deviate from citizens’ fundamental rights are, to the extent that they do so, null and void. Article 368 discusses the Indian Constitution’s amending process and powers.

In 1951, Shankari Prasad v. Union of India:
[5]This case involved a contestation of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which was declared unlawful on the grounds that it infringed upon the “Fundamental Rights” guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution. In affirming the constitutionality of the Constitutional Amendment Act, the Supreme Court held that “the legislature’s ability to modify every part of the Constitution under Article 368 also requires the power to amend the ‘Fundamental Rights’ enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.”The Supreme Court ruled in this case that, like all other regular parts of the Constitution, Part III has no special standing in regard to the other sections and that the laws included within are subject to legislative revision under Article 368.

In the Shankari Prasad case, the Supreme Court maintained the ruling, concluding that Article 13 had been appropriately applied. The word “amendment” describes any modification to the provisions of the Constitution.

 Sajjan Singh V. Rajasthan State (1965):

The constitutionality of the 17th Amendment Act of 1964, which extended the definition of “Estate” in Article 31A of the Constitution to encompass Ryotwari Settlement lands and other areas typically covered by Land Reform Enactments. In order to ensure the constitutional validity of the land reforms and prevent them from being challenged in court on the grounds that they violate any of the provisions of Part III’s Fundamental Rights, the Amendment also added 44 more State Enactments to the Constitution’s Ninth Schedule. This was disputed on the grounds that the change fell under the jurisdiction of Article 368 since one of the acts added by the addition to the 9th Schedule affected the petitioner.

The Shankari Prasad case was upheld by the Supreme Court, which decided that Article 13(2) had been correctly applied. “Amendment” means any modification to the provisions of the Constitution.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643):
The rationale of this case was greatly supported by a number of later rulings and revisions, as we have seen, and the precedent for Kesavananda was established following the Golaknath ruling. Before we examine Golaknath’s choice, let’s begin with a timeline that explains each one.

[6]An 11-judge panel of the Apex court ruled in Golaknath that the Parliament lacks the power to change constitutional rights. The ratio used to make the choice was 6:5. The majority judgement in Golaknath conveyed a great deal of annoyance and mistrust over the Parliament’s actions, which it had been taking by using Article 368 for ten years.Parliament has used this particular clause in numerous rulings pertaining to the fundamental rights and the meaning of the constitution. When Sajjan Singh was in power in 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the authority to alter the Fundamental Rights outlined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in Golaknath to reverse this ruling.[7]

[8]The Supreme Court cited the following reasoning:
1. The majority argues that the contested Article 368, which gave the parliament the authority to modify the Constitution, only established the process for doing so. To reach this judgement, the majority cited the marginal note of the previous Article 368.
2. The majority found that Article 248 of the Constitution, which establishes Parliament’s residual power, gives it the authority to change the document. According to the majority, a constitutional amendment is law for the purposes of article 13(2) since the result of Article 248 is law.

3.The majority’s response to the lack of the word “amendment” in the definition of “law” was that Article 13(3)(a) defines it as inclusive rather than exhaustive.
In contrast to Article 368, which just outlines the process, the delivered ruling ruled that the power to alter the constitution originates from legislation like Articles 245, 246 and 248 (which grant parliament the authority to make laws). Consequently, it is determined that the statutory and amending forces are identical. Therefore, under Article 13, statutory powers are limited, and these limitations also apply to changes that incorporate new legal provisions.

IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CASE   

The 24th Amendment to the Constitution of 1971
This amendment was approved in response to the Supreme Court’s Golaknath ruling. Articles 13 and 368 of the constitution were modified by the amendment.
1.This article restored the parliamentary authority to change any parts of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. The addition of Articles 13(4) and 368(3). “Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368,” according to Article 13(4). Furthermore, “Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article,” according to article 368(3).

3.Article 368’s marginal heading was modified from “procedure for amendment to the constitution” to “power of parliament to amend the constitution and procedure thereof.”
Additionally, it was mandated that the President must sign any such legislation.

25th Amendment

• “The Parliament wanted to clarify that they are not obligated to appropriately reimburse landlords in the event that the State Government claims their property under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. This was accomplished by substituting the term amount for the word compensation.
• Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) were no longer connected.
• In order to eliminate all obstacles and achieve the goals outlined in Articles 39(b) and 39(c), a new provision was inserted under Article 31(c) of the Constitution. It was determined that Articles 14, 19, and 31 would not be applied to any laws. The court was prohibited from interfering with any legislation passed by Parliament in order for Articles 39(b) and 39(c) to be effective.[9]

BRIEF FACTS

[10]In 1969, the state government of Kerala passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act, which gave the government the authority to seize some of the territory belonging to the Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. A few plots of land that Keshvananda Bharti owned in his name were part of the sect.

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, Keshvananda Bharti petitioned the Supreme Court on March 21, 1970, to have his rights under Articles 25 (right to practise and propagate religion), 26 (right to manage religious affairs), 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), and 31 (right to manage religious affairs) (compulsory acquisition of property) protected. While the court was still considering the petition, the Kerala government approved another statute, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) statute, 1971.

[11]Parliament passed a number of revisions to overturn the Golaknath ruling after the historic case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The 25th and 29th Amendments were passed in 1972 after the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1971.

ISSUES IN THE COURT

• Is the 24th Amendment to the Constitution Act of 1971 constitutionally valid?
• Is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, Act of 1972, constitutionally valid?
• The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES

• The arguments of the petitioner

The petitioner contended that because the Parliament has limited authority, it cannot alter the Constitution in the manner that it desires. Parliament cannot alter the fundamental framework of the constitution, as Justice Mudhokar said in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case. The petitioner pleaded for the protection of his assets under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.[12]

Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution, which protects fundamental rights, was allegedly violated by the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments, petitioner said. In order to protect their freedom, Indians have fundamental rights, and if a constitutional amendment infringes upon these rights, the freedom that the Constitution provides for its residents is deemed to have been taken away from them.

• Arguments made by the respondent

The respondent was the State. The State said that Parliament has unrestricted authority to modify the Constitution since the Supremacy of Parliament is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. The state further contended that Parliament must use its unrestricted authority to alter the constitution in order to fulfil its socioeconomic obligations, which are promised to Indian citizens in the Preamble.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

[13]The Supreme Court ruled by a 7:6 majority that Parliament can change any provision of the Constitution to satisfy its socioeconomic obligations to the people as stipulated in the Preamble, provided that the change does not change the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution.The first and second parts of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act were determined to be intra vires and uber vires, respectively, while the court wholeheartedly upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment. The court noted that in the Golaknath case, the topic of the Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution was abandoned. In the current case, the court determined that Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, provided that the alteration does not alter the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution.

RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA OF THE CASE

[14]In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the ratio decidendi (the binding legal principle) was the establishment of the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine holds that while the Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or framework. The obiter dicta (non-binding observations) included discussions about the scope of the amending power and the nature of constitutional interpretation. 

Ratio Decidendi:

• The core legal principle established in Kesavananda Bharati is that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute. 
• It cannot be used to destroy or alter the fundamental features or basic structure of the Constitution. 
• This principle was a response to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments which sought to expand the Parliament’s amending power. 
• The court held that these amendments were valid, but they could not be interpreted to allow for changes to the basic structure. 
• This basic structure doctrine has been applied in subsequent cases, providing a framework for judicial review of constitutional amendments. 

Obiter Dicta:

• Obiter dicta in the Kesavananda Bharati case include the court’s discussions on the nature of the basic structure and its components. 
• The court did not explicitly define the basic structure, leaving it to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
• These observations, while not binding, have been influential in shaping the understanding and application of the basic structure doctrine. 
• The court also discussed the limitations of the Parliament’s amending power, suggesting that it could not be used to undermine the Constitution’s essential features. 

[15]CONCLUSION

[16]Since it preserved India’s “Democracy,” the Kesavananda Bharati Case is undoubtedly the most important case in the history of independent India. The primary player in this historic case was Senior Advocate and renowned jurist Nani Palkhivala.

In his article “Palkhivala and the Constitution of India,” distinguished lawyer and former Attorney General of India Soli J. Sorabjee stated that “Palkhivala maintained that a Constitution is meant not just to compensate for the exigencies of the moment but to last over the centuries.”

The Supreme Court made it clear in this judgement that only the Indian Constitution, which immortalises its “Fundamental Frameworks,” may be inducted into the most revered “Pedestal of Deity” in a country like India where “Constitutional Democracy” is the norm. This “Historic Fundamental Rights Case” forced the Supreme Court to develop the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which protected the sacred elements of the Indian Constitution and prevented the country from collapsing into a totalitarian state, despite the fact that the petitioner, His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, lost the case because the court upheld the validity of two Land Reforms Acts that were contested.[17]

In this case summary I concluded that the Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, while also providing valuable, though non-binding, observations on the nature of constitutional interpretation and the limits of governmental power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

•  M.P. Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 85, (5th edn., 2008).
• H M Servai, INDIAN CONSTITUTION (4th Ed., 2015).
• Introduction to the Constitution of India” by D D Basu.
• “Concise Encylcopedia of Indian Constitution” by Subhash Kashyap.
• Constitution Law of India by JN Panda.

[1]Author is a student at Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU), India   

[2]AIR. 1951 SC 458  

[3]AIR. 1965 AIR 845

[4]Art.13 of Indian Constitution 

[5]AIR 1975 SC 2299 

[6]AIR 1980 SC 1789

[7]1970 AIR 564 

[8]1980 AIR 1789

[9]Asthana, S., 2021. Case Brief on Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala(1973). [online] iPleaders. Available at: <https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/>

[10] Law Times Journal. 2021. Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala – Case Summary – Law Times Journal. Available at: <http://lawtimesjournal.in/kesavananda-bharti-vs-state-of-kerala-case-summary/>

[11]Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union Of India5 (1970 AIR 564),

[12] Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union Of India And State Of Bihar (AIR. 1951 SC 458),

[13] Sajjan Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845),

[14] Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299),

[15] Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India6 (1971 AIR 530),

[16] Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors. (1980 AIR 1789)

[17] International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation  [Vol. 3 Iss 4; 635]