Case Details
- Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others v. State of Kerala and Another
- Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: 13-judge Constitution Bench (Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, A.K. Mukherjea, Y.V. Chandrachud, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, B.K. Mukherjea)
- Date of Judgment: April 24, 1973
- Vote: 7:6 (Majority upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine)
Background
The Kesavananda Bharati case is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The case emerged from a clash between the judiciary and legislature, particularly after the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) ruling, which restricted Parliament’s ability to amend fundamental rights. In response, Parliament passed:
- 24th Amendment (1971): Clarified that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
- 25th Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C, prioritizing certain Directive Principles (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) over fundamental rights (Articles 14, 19, 31).
- 29th Amendment (1972): Added Kerala land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from judicial review.
These amendments were challenged, leading to the landmark case that redefined constitutional boundaries.
Facts
- Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala.
- Respondent: State of Kerala and Union of India.
- Context: The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969, restricted the management of religious properties, including those of the Edneer Mutt. The petitioner claimed violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(f) (right to property, since repealed), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious institutions), and 31 (right to property, since repealed).
- The 29th Amendment placed these laws in the Ninth Schedule, prompting a challenge to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments for undermining the Constitution’s core.
Issues
- What is the extent of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368?
- Can Parliament amend fundamental rights or essential constitutional features?
- Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments constitutionally valid?
- Can the judiciary limit Parliament’s amending power?
Arguments
Petitioners (Led by N.A. Palkhivala)
- Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is limited and cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Fundamental rights are integral to the Constitution’s core and cannot be abrogated.
- The 24th Amendment grants excessive power, threatening the Constitution’s identity.
- Article 31C (25th Amendment) disrupts the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles.
- The 29th Amendment’s inclusion of laws in the Ninth Schedule undermines judicial review.
Respondents (Government)
- Article 368 grants Parliament unlimited amending power, reflecting the will of the people.
- The 24th Amendment clarifies Parliament’s inherent authority.
- Article 31C is essential for socio-economic reforms via Directive Principles.
- The 29th Amendment protects land reform laws critical for social justice.
- Restricting Parliament’s power would hinder constitutional adaptability.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, delivered its judgment on April 24, 1973:
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter its basic structure.
- Basic structure includes (non-exhaustive): supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic government, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, rule of law, judicial review, and equality.
- Amendments:
- 24th Amendment: Upheld, as it clarifies Parliament’s amending power without violating the basic structure.
- 25th Amendment: The first part of Article 31C (protecting laws under Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) was upheld; the second part (excluding judicial review) was struck down for violating judicial review, a basic feature.
- 29th Amendment: Upheld, but Ninth Schedule laws are subject to review if they violate the basic structure.
- Golaknath Overruled: Fundamental rights can be amended if the basic structure is preserved.
- Judicial Review: Affirmed as a basic feature, ensuring the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution.
Significance
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Established a judicial safeguard against arbitrary constitutional amendments, balancing parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional integrity.
- Judicial Review: Strengthened the judiciary’s role as the Constitution’s guardian.
- Rights vs. Directive Principles: Clarified that socio-economic reforms can be prioritized without destroying fundamental rights.
- Global Impact: Influenced constitutional law in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
- Political Context: Curtailed excessive legislative power, influencing later events like the Emergency (1975-1977) and subsequent cases (e.g., Minerva Mills (1980), I.R. Coelho (2007)).
Analysis
- Strengths: The doctrine preserves the Constitution’s core while allowing flexibility. Justice H.R. Khanna’s swing vote provided a balanced approach.
- Criticisms: The minority viewed the doctrine as vague, risking judicial overreach. The undefined nature of “basic structure” allows judicial discretion but may lead to inconsistency.
- Legacy: The doctrine has been consistently applied to protect constitutional principles, ensuring democratic stability.
Conclusion
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala remains a defining moment in Indian jurisprudence, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine as a bulwark against constitutional erosion. It ensures that while Parliament can adapt the Constitution, its foundational principles—democracy, secularism, and judicial review—remain inviolable.