Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala

Title: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala

Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973

Bench Strength: 13 Judges (Largest constitutional bench in Indian history)

Judges:

S.M. Sikri (CJI), J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea, Y.V. Chandrachud

2.INTRODUCTION

Kesavananda Bharati v. judgment. One of the most important and radical decisions of the Indian constitutional history is the State of Kerala. It provided the Basic Structure Doctrine in which Parliament is restricted in making amendments to the Constitution under Article 368.

The case ended a prolonged debate on whether Parliament has the power to make changes to the Constitution and the judiciary can safeguard the basic constitutional principles. It was a turning point as it guaranteed that the Constitution is not inflexible but can be destroyed as a result of random amendments.

The case upheld the preeminence of the Constitution and that there are fundamental elements of the Constitution that are inaccessible to the amendment of parliament.

3.FACTS OF THE CASE

Kesavananda Bharati was a religious leader of the Hindu institution of Edneer Mutt, in Kerala. The Mutt possessed big parcels of land that were utilized as religious and charitable.

The Kerala State Government created a Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in 1969, in which the state government restricted land ownership and could purchase surplus land. This act had a direct influence on the land that the Edneer Mutt had.

Kesavananda Bharati questioned the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that it was unjustified to his basic rights, especially:

• Article 25 (Freedom of religion)
• Article 26 (Freedom of religious affairs)
• Article 31 (Right to property) (in its original form then).

In the interim of proceedings of the case, a series of constitutional measure were enacted by Parliament:

• 24^th Constitutional Amendment Act1971
• 25^th Constitutional Amendment Act1971
• 29^th Constitutional Amendment Act 1972

These Amendments were meant to enhance the constitutional authority of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and to render inaccessible to judicial review some laws of land reform.The case was presented before a 13-judge court of the Supreme Court since the constitutional issues at stake were far-reaching.

4.LEGAL ISSUES

1.Question of whether the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution unlimited by the Article 368?

2.Can Parliament amend or abrogate Fundamental Rights?

3.Is there are an intrinsic restriction on the amending power of Parliament?

4.Did the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the constitutional amendments on the same matter, have any constitutional merit?

5.ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

5.1 Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

• Article 368 does not give unlimited authority to Parliament.
• Parliament is not able to change or annihilate the Fundamental Rights which are the necessary ones to the Constitution.
• The Constitution has some fundamental postulates like democracy, rule of law and judicial review which are irrevocable.
• The 24th, 25th and the 29th Constitutional Amendments were unconstitutional because they eliminated judicial review and hurt the constitutional structure.

The petitioner had based on previous decisions e.g. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), that said that Fundamental Rights could not be amended.

5.2 Respondent’s Arguments

This case concerned the State of Kerala and the Union of India, which argued that:

• Article 368 provides that parliament has the absolute and unlimited power to amend the
• Article 13 does not consider an amendment to be a law, hence Fundamental Rights can be amended.
• The will of the people as manifested by the Parliament should count.
• The sovereignty of the parliament is compromised by judicial review of constitutional amendments.

They claimed that socio-economic reforms such as land redistribution should have a strong legislative power without judicial interference.

6. Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional philosophy, intent, and comparative constitutional law.

Interpretation of Article 368

Most of them believed that Article 368 provided Parliament with the authority to make changes to the Constitution, and this authority is not absolute. The term amendment means to make good not to ruin.

Basic Structure Doctrine:

The Court brought in the Basic Structure Doctrine which stated that Parliament could not make changes to the basic structure or essential aspects of the Constitution.Even though the judges disagreed over what constitutes the basic structure per se, they all concurred that there exists a basic structure.

Role of Judicial Review:

The judicial review was declared to be a basic aspect of the Constitution. The elimination of judicial review would upset the balance of power and do away with constitutional supremacy.

Fundamental Rights:

The Court quashed Golaknath to a certain extent and declared that Fundamental Rights could be amended but these amendments were not to harm the basic structure.

The opinion of Justice H.R. Khanna was absolute. He made it clear that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is supreme: the Constitution itself is supreme.

7. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

Final Decision

• The Supreme Court by a strict majority of 7:6 ruled:
• Article 368 gives the parliament authority to make amendments to the Constitution.
• Nevertheless, Parliament is unable to change or to destroy the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
• The 24th Amendment was valid.
• The second section of the 25 th Amendment was unconstitutional in that it did not provide judicial review.
• The 29 th Amendment was maintained, with the basic structure restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Basic Structure Doctrine forms the ratio decidendi of the case:

“Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited, and it cannot damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution”.

8. Critical Analysis

8.1 Significance of the decision

The Decision is significant because it enhanced the efficiency of the mortgage market and the overall economy by eliminating the extra costs caused by mortgage backed securities (MBSs). It has made sure that the concepts of democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial review are safeguarded.

8.2 Implications and Impact

• This doctrine was used in subsequent cases like that of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Minerva Mills v. Union of India, and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu.
• It enhanced the position of judiciary as the protector of the Constitution.
• It was able to balance the constitutional flexibility and stability.

8.3 Critical Evaluation

Although the doctrine safeguards the constitutional values, critics are of the opinion that it vests too much power on the judiciary and is not well defined. But it is flexible thus it can be adjusted to the current needs of democracy.

In general, the case has been viewed as a critical move in the protection against a constitutional abuse.

9. Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark case in the constitutional history of India, which changed the constitutional law of the country. The Supreme Court was able to make the Basic Structure Doctrine dynamic and guarded against destruction by evolving it.

The ruling balanced the legislative powers with the constitutional preeminence and maintained the spirit of democracy in India. It is one of the most influential judicial decisions in the Indian legal history, and its impact on the constitutional interpretation and democratic governance still remains.                                                                            

Reference(S):

1. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).
2. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461 (India).
3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643 (India).
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625 (India).
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp. S.C.C. 1 (India).
6. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1 (India).
7. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 168–190 (8th ed. 2018).
8. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 120–135 (Mahendra P. Singh ed., 13th ed. 2017).
9. GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 258–270 (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
10. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA vol. 1, 275–295 (4th ed. 2013).