Authored By: Pari Kaushik
Llyod Law College, Noida
Case title– Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Court– Supreme court of India
Bench type– Constitutional Bench
Bench– The Kesavananda Bharati case had a 13-judge bench, and the judges were: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, 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. Mukherjee, and Y.V. Chandrachud
Date of judgement– 24 April 1973
Introduction
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a landmark judgment in the history of the Indian Constitution. It established the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368. The case balanced Parliament’s authority with the supremacy of the Constitution, forever shaping India’s constitutional democracy.
Facts of the case
➢ After attaining independence, all the states were dedicated to enhancing their social and economic structure. It became evident that although equality existed, the resources and means of production were restricted to only a few individuals or groups. Gradually, people recognized the injustice of this wealth concentration. In response, all the states-initiated reforms by amending existing laws to address this issue. These changes aimed to create a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities for all. In a similar vein, the State Government of Kerala took action to address issues related to Zamindari, Land Ownership, and Tenancy by enacting the Kerala Land Reform Act in 1965. This legislation aimed to improve systems and restricted property rights of the people.
➢ Under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Shri R. Shankar, who was then the Chief Minister of Kerala, acquired the land belonging to Edneer Mutt in the Kasaragod district. As a result of this acquisition, the income of the Mutt was completely disrupted, reducing it to zero. In response, the head of Edneer Mutt, Shri Kesavananda Bharati, challenged this land acquisition in March 1970, marking the beginning of a significant legal dispute.
➢ Kesavananda Bharti case was represented by Nanabhai Palkiwala in court. He filed a writ petition in Supreme Court. This Land Reform Act was violating fundamental rights Fundamental Rights, including Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19(1)(f)
(Right to Property), Article 25 (Freedom of Religion), and Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs). . He believed that right to own a land is a fundamental right and these rights should get protection. At that time, Supreme Court was already having cases like Bank Nationalization case 1970, Madhav Rao’s Sindhika case 1971, GokalNath case 1967. In all these cases, it was seen that two most important pillars were doing power struggle, Parliament and Supreme Court. Parliament believed that through Article 368, Parliament have unlimited power to amend constitution but Supreme Court was disagreeing with the statement.
➢ In the Golkanath v. Punjab case, a panel of 11 judges was formed to address the question of whether Parliament has unfettered power to modify the constitution without restriction. In response, the Supreme Court limited Parliament’s ability to modify legislation. In response to this imposition, the Parliament proposed amendments 24, 25, and 29 to restore its power.
▪ 24th amendment 1971– Parliament has power to amend any provision of the constitution
▪ 25th amendment 1972– Right to property can be curtailed, for the goodwill of people government can acquire private property and the compensation will be decided by the parliament not by the court
▪ 29th amendment 1972– Land reforms act under 9th schedule, if any law is under 9th schedule it cannot be reviewed by the court
Arguments of the petitioner of Keshvananda Bharati case
➢ The petitioner contends that power under Article 368 is limited. It is not limitless.
➢ Fundamental rights are intended to guarantee people’ freedom, such as Article 19(F), which addresses the right to property.
➢ The petitioner further claimed that the 24th and 25th Amendment Acts violate people’ fundamental rights.
Arguments of the respondent of Keshvananda Bharati case
➢ The Respondent (Government) contended that the Parliament has unlimited and absolute power to modify the Constitution under Article 368. It contended that all states have an obligation to enhance the social and economic welfare of the people, and hence the powers of Parliament must not be curtailed.
➢ The Government argued that the requirements of society keep evolving with the passage of time, and in order to satisfy these changing requirements, Parliament should be free to change any provision of the Constitution, even the Fundamental Rights. It also argued that Parliament was competent enough to place reasonable limitations on Fundamental Rights as long as such modifications are in the greater interest of the country and work towards social and economic justice.
Judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati case
➢ The biggest bench of 13 Supreme Court judges was set up in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) to determine the extent of Parliament’s amending power. The case was decided by a 7:6 majority and is one of the most important judgments in the history of Indian constitutional law.
➢ The Court reversed the judgment in the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967).
➢ The court ruled that the 24th Constitutional Amendment was constitutional. The Supreme Court announced that according to Article 368, Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It made an important caveat, however — Parliament cannot modify or eliminate the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This rule was later referred to as the Basic Structure Doctrine. ➢ Also, the Court noted that even if a law is covered under the Ninth Schedule, the law cannot escape judicial review if it offends the basic structure of the Constitution.
24th April 1973
On the 24th April 1973, the Basic Structure Doctrine was established by the Supreme Court by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The Court gave an indicative list of characteristics that are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which comprises:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of Law
- Separation of Powers
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Independence of the Judiciary
- Sovereign Democratic Republic Structure
- Freedom and Dignity of the Individual
The Court further explained that the determination of whether a feature is part of the basic structure would depend on a case-by-case analysis.This case is crucially significant because the Supreme Court skillfully harmonized Parliament’s power and the Constitution. Although Parliament was empowered with wide authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot modify or obliterate its foundational elements. This historic judgment preserved Indian democracy and secured protection for constitutional values for generations to come.
Significance
The Keshavananda Bharati decision has formed the basis for numerous subsequent constitutional judgments, including Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). These judgments reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and reinforced the concepts of democracy, federalism, secularism, and judicial review from being undermined in any way by any misuse of power.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – In 1975, there was a major legal fight between Raj Narain and Indira Gandhi.The then Prime Minister, was challenged in court because of the election, and it was declared void by the Allahabad High Court. The Parliament responded by coming up with the 39th amendment, whose objective was to bar the court from challenging the elections of the Prime Minister and other senior government officials. Yet, using the basic structure doctrine set out in the Keshvananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court upheld that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the constitution. The Supreme Court accordingly struck downed the 39th amendment.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)- The issue raised in this case was whether laws under 9th Schedule could be protected from judicial review even if they violate fundamental rights. In response to this, Supreme Court stated that any law placed in 9th Schedule could be challenged if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution as set out in Keshavananda Bharti case.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)- The Supreme Court has examined the invocation of Article 356 or President’s Rule by the Central Government to remove State Governments and held that it is not a absolute power. The Court has stressed that there are constraints on this power. The Court has held that the federal and secular principles, which are part of the Constitution, would have to be preserved. In addition, the Court has reaffirmed that the removal of State Governments is amenable to judicial review, as determined in the case of Keshvananda Bharati. This ruling reinforces the need to preserve the spirit of the Constitution and providing protection to state governments from arbitrary removal.
Even today, every major constitutional case in India refers to the Keshavananda Bharati judgment as the guardian of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Keshavananda Bharti case is a significant judgment in the Indian Constitution that has greatly affected the country’s legal system. It has been essential in keeping the basic structure of the Constitution intact, which protects democracy. This ruling has given the judiciary the power to examine amendments and changes made by Parliament and to reject any modifications that endanger the basic structure. Even now, this case shapes decisions in other legal matters, making it one of the most important judgments in Indian legal history.
