Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225
Judgment Date: April 24, 1973
Bench: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justices A.N. Ray, K.S. Hegde, A.K. Mukherjea, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, P. Jagannatha Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, A.N. Grover
Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati
Respondent: State of Kerala

Background:

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case is considered one of the most critical judgments in the history of Indian constitutional law. It dealt with the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, specifically focusing on whether Parliament had the power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

Facts of the Case:

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious sect known as the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a petition challenging the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire the Mutt’s property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. The petitioner argued that the government’s actions violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 (Right to Religion), 26 (Right to Manage Religious Affairs), and 31 (Right to Property) of the Indian Constitution.

During this period, there were ongoing debates about the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, especially after the 24th Amendment (1971), which gave Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Kesavananda Bharati’s case soon evolved into a larger constitutional issue that questioned the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution in a way that affects its basic structure.

Issues Raised:

1. Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution:
   Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, or is there a limitation to this power?
2. Basic Structure Doctrine:
   Can the “basic structure” or “framework” of the Constitution be altered by an amendment, or must it remain inviolate?
3. Interpretation of Articles 13, 368, and Fundamental Rights:
   Should the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution be subject to amendment by Parliament, or do they form part of the Constitution’s basic structure?
4. Scope of Judicial Review:
   Does the judiciary have the power to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament, and can it strike down amendments that affect the basic structure?

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Kesavananda Bharati’s counsel, led by senior advocates Nani Palkhivala and M.K. Nambiar, argued that:

• The Constitution was a sacred document representing the will of the people, and its basic framework should not be altered by Parliament, even through an amendment.
• The 24th Amendment, which granted Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, was unconstitutional because it allowed Parliament to potentially destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Fundamental rights, such as the Right to Property, form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any amendment that affects or abridges them should be subject to judicial review.

The petitioner urged the Court to declare that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not absolute and was subject to inherent limitations.

Also read : Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Kerala):

The State of Kerala, represented by the Attorney General and other senior counsels, argued that:

• The Constitution explicitly granted Parliament the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, and there were no restrictions on this power.
• The 24th Amendment was passed to clarify Parliament’s amending power, especially in light of previous judicial interpretations that had restricted this power.
• The fundamental rights were not beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power, and Parliament had the authority to make necessary changes to the Constitution to address the needs of the country, even if it involved altering fundamental rights.

The state contended that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution should be unfettered to ensure the effective governance of the country.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment with a 7:6 majority, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court held that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot amend or destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

1. Power to Amend:
   The Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but placed a limitation: amendments must not alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This ruling effectively curtailed Parliament’s ability to make changes that would fundamentally alter the Constitution’s essential features.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine:
   The judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which declared that certain parts of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic and republican nature of the government, and the secular character of the state, form the “basic structure” and are immune from amendment. Fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the right to life and liberty, were also identified as part of the basic structure.
3. Fundamental Rights:
   The Court held that while Parliament could amend fundamental rights, such amendments must not infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution. This ruling reaffirmed the supremacy of fundamental rights within the larger constitutional framework, especially when balanced against the amending power of Parliament.
4. Judicial Review:
   The Court emphasized the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the basic structure of the Constitution. It held that the judiciary has the power to review constitutional amendments and strike them down if they infringe on the basic structure.

Dissenting Opinion:

The dissenting judges, led by Justice A.N. Ray, argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was absolute and unrestricted. They contended that the Constitution did not impose any limitations on Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including its basic structure. The dissenters believed that imposing judicially created limitations on the amending power would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament and hinder necessary constitutional reforms.

Impact of the Judgment:

The Kesavananda Bharati case is considered a turning point in Indian constitutional history. The Basic Structure Doctrine, established by this judgment, has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The doctrine ensures that certain core values and principles of the Constitution are protected from being altered or destroyed by amendments, even by a legislative body as powerful as Parliament.

This case also marked the beginning of a more assertive role for the judiciary in reviewing constitutional amendments and safeguarding the fundamental principles of democracy, secularism, and the rule of law in India.

The judgment had far-reaching implications for the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, with subsequent cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India further reinforcing the basic structure doctrine.

Conclusion:

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala redefined the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. While affirming the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court placed an important check by protecting the Constitution’s basic structure. This judgment has ensured that the Constitution’s fundamental values and principles remain intact, safeguarding India’s democratic and constitutional framework.

---

For the original judgment, you can view it here.