KESHVANANDA BHARTI V. STATE OF KERELA

Case Name: KESHVANANDA BHARTI V. STATE OF KERELA

Backdrop of the case:

First constitutional amendment was challenged in Shankari Prasad case and it was upheld that directive principles of state policy supersede the fundamental rights and government has complete autonomy to amend any article of the constitution.

Then followed the Golaknath case which held that no constitutional amendment under article 368 can essentially amend fundamental rights. Government had no authority to change the fundamental rights and they are sacrosanct.

In response to which the twenty fourth constitutional amendment was enacted stating that the government can make laws and amend any provision of the constitution including those in part III, making fundamentals alienable at the hands of government.

And that is challenged in Kesavananda Bharti case

Facts

The Kesavananda Bharati case revolves around His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastery in Kerala. In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire the Mutt’s property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking protection of his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), and 31 (compulsory acquisition of property). The petition challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which sought to expand the Parliament’s amending powers under article 368 and limiting article 139(2) hence an attempt to curtail judicial review.

Issues

• Whether the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368?
• Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution?
• Whether there are inherent limitations on the Parliament’s amending power, even though the Constitution does not explicitly mention them?

Case Discussion and Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 Kesavananda Bharati’s counsel, led by eminent jurist Nani Palkhivala, argued that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not absolute. They contended that certain fundamental features, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and fundamental rights, could not be altered. The counsel claimed that the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution and infringed upon fundamental rights. The petitioners emphasized that the amendments diminished the role of the judiciary and threatened the democratic fabric of the nation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State of Kerala and the Union of India, represented by the Attorney General, contended that the Parliament had absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368. They maintained that the amendments were necessary for implementing socio-economic reforms and achieving the goals of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The government asserted that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution included the power to amend fundamental rights. The respondents argued that there were no inherent limitations on the Parliament’s amending power, as long as the procedural requirements of Article 368 were followed.

Judgment

In a historic judgment delivered on April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court of India, in a narrow 7-6 decision, established the “basic structure doctrine.” The Court held that while the Parliament had wide powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure. The judgment was delivered by a 13-judge bench, making it the largest bench ever to decide a case in the history of the Supreme Court of India.

• Validity of the 24th Amendment: The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, which affirmed the Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The amendment clarified that Article 368 grants the Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution and that the term “amendment” includes the addition, variation, or repeal of any provision of the Constitution.
• Partial Invalidity of the 25th Amendment: The Court struck down the second part of the 25th Amendment, which curtailed judicial review and limited compensation for property acquisition. The amendment introduced Article 31C, which aimed to protect laws implementing the Directive Principles from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. The Court held that while laws made to implement the Directive Principles could not be challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, or 31, they could still be challenged if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Validity of the 29th Amendment: The Court upheld the validity of the 29th Amendment, which added certain land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Ninth Schedule was created to protect specific laws from judicial review. However, the Court emphasized that even amendments to the Ninth Schedule could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

The judgment established that the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 does not extend to altering the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The “basic structure doctrine” has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that certain fundamental principles, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, and the separation of powers, remain inviolable. The basic structure doctrine continues to guide judicial review of constitutional amendments and preserves the integrity of the Indian Constitution