KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA

CASE NAME: KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA

CASE NUMBER: 13174/2005. STATE OF KERALA, (1973) 4 SCC 225

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

STRENGTH OF THE BENCH: 13 JUDGES (BIGGEST CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THE INDIAN HISTORY)

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 24 APRIL 1973

INTRODUCTION

Kesavananda Bharati v. decision. One of the most important constitutional rulings in the Indian jurisprudence is State of Kerala. It essentially changed the relationship between Parliament with the Constitution given that it propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine which restricts the amending power of Parliament as stipulated in Article 368 of the Constitution of India. The case led to the end of a long-time debate between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy and would remain to be used in interpreting the constitution in India.

This case brief analyzes critically the facts, legal issues, arguments presented by each party, the reasoning system of the judge, ratio, and the future effect of the ruling on the constitution of Indians jurisprudence in court.

BACKGROUND AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru was the leader (Mahant) of the religious institution called Edneer Mutt found in Kerala in Kasaragod district. The Mutt possessed vast estates of land. The Kerala Government in the year 1969 passed land reform laws and especially the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (as amended in 1969) which made restrictions on land ownership and offered the State to acquire excess land.

The petitioner raised a constitutional challenge against the validity of these land reform laws citing that these laws were against his fundamental rights as provided under:

• Article 14 (Right to Equality),
• Article 19(1) (f) (Right to Property – then in force).
• Article 25 (Freedom of Religion),
• Article 26 (Freedom of religious management).

In the meantime, the Parliament made a series of constitutional amendments:

• Constitutional Amendment Act 24th, Amendment, 1971.
• 25th Constitutional Amendment act, 1971.
• Act of 29th Constitutional Amendment, 1972.

These amendments were aimed at ensuring that the authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution was reinforced and that some land reform laws could not be reviewed by the judiciary by enacting them in the Ninth Schedule.

Because of broad constitutional implications, the Supreme Court was a 13-judge body to establish the extent to which Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution.

LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED

The main questions that were presented to the Court were:

• Whether under Article 368, Parliament is free to amend the Constitution to unlimited extent.
• The possibility of constitutional amendment of Fundamental Rights or not.
• The issue of whether there are any natural restrictions to the power of Parliament to amend.
• The 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments are valid.
• Can constitutional amendment exclude judicial review.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

It was argued by the petitioner that:

• The Constitution is anchored on some fundamental principles that cannot be changed or demolished.
• Article 368 simply states how the process of amendment should take place and does not give an open-ended substantive authority.
• Basic Rights are a very vital component of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated.
• Even through the amending power parliament cannot turn a limited Constitution into an unlimited one.
• The rule of law is violated by amendments putting laws in the Ninth Schedule that immunize them against judicial review.

The petitioner drew a lot of inspiration on the rationale in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) the Supreme Court had determined that Fundamental Rights were inalienable.

ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT (STATE OF KERALA AND UNION OF INDIA)

It was argued by the State and Union Government that:

• The assembly of parliament reigns supreme on the issue of amendment of the constitution.
• Article 368 provides a plenary authority to make any amendment to any section of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights.
• Parliamentary supremacy is deterred by judicial review of the constitutional amendments.
• Constitutional flexibility is needed in the socio-economic reforms like land redistribution.
• The Constitution is dynamic and Parliament should be given the mandate to amend the Constitution to suit the emerging needs in society.

CRITICISM AND JUDICIAL REASONING

The court ruling by the Supreme Court was a split verdict of 7:6 with the slim majority enacting the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Key Holdings

1. Fundamental Rights may be amended by parliament just like any other part of the Constitution.
2. But Parliament is not able to modify or abolish the fundamental form of the Constitution.
3. Article 368 is not an absolute power; it has certain limitations inherent in it.
4. The basic structure cannot do without judicial review.
5. The 24th Amendment was upheld.
6. The first section, the 25th Amendment was confirmed and the second section (without judicial review) was invalidated.
7. The 29th amendment was supported as it is subject to the basic structure test.

THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

Judges have listed several elements as the basic structure, although the Court did not give a comprehensive list, which include:

• Constitutional Supremacy.
• Republican or democratic type of government.
• Secularism
• Separation of powers
• Federalism
• Rule of law
• Judicial review
• Justice in principle (in substance).

This doctrine guarantees that although the Constitution is quite flexible, it is not authoritarianly changeable.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The dictum of the case is:

The authority of Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution by the Article 368 is broad but not absolute, it cannot amend the Constitution in such a way that it destroys or changes its fundamental framework.

This principle gives stability to the constitution and flexibility to democracy.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT

• Constitutional Supremacy

The ruling solidified the sovereignty of the Constitution over that of parliament.

• The Strengthening of Judicial Review.

The Court reasserted its position as the protector of the Constitution, and the amendments can be judged.

• Long-Term Application

Basic Structure Doctrine has been used in many situations, which include:

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

• Democratic Safeguard

The doctrine serves as a means of protection against power concentration and possible denunciation of the democratic principles.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Although the ruling has been applauded as having saved constitutional democracy, critics believe it gives too much powers to the judiciary and has no textual specificity. Subjectivity on the part of the judiciary is caused by the lack of a clear list of fundamental features. But with the history of Indian constitution and socio-political diversity, the doctrine has been perceived mostly as a checkpoint on the excesses of majoritarianism.

CONCLUSION

Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a constitutional landmark which changed the Indian constitutional law. Through the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court was able to make sure constitutional amendments do not impair democratic ideals at the expense of the values that the Constitution was founded on. The case still influences the interpretation of the constitution and is one of the main pillars of Indian public law.

REFERENCE(S):

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
• Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625.
• V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Company).