Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala

The Kesavananda Bharati case, officially titled Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala, remains a pivotal moment in the constitutional history of India. The Supreme Court’s judgment in 1973 introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, a principle that has since safeguarded the Indian Constitution from potential misuse by the legislature. This article delves into the background, the proceedings, and the significant implications of this landmark case.

Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati, the chief pontiff of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms legislation in 1970. This legislation imposed restrictions on the management of religious properties, which Bharati contended infringed upon his Constitutional rights. He argued that these restrictions violated Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to practice and propagate religion, manage religious affairs, equality before the law, freedom to acquire property, and protection from compulsory acquisition of property, respectively.

The case’s complexity and its potential impact on the Constitution led the Supreme Court to constitute a 13-judge bench, the largest in its history, to hear the matter.

Issues before the Court:

1. The constitutional validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
2. The constitutional validity of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972.
3. The extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
4. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is unlimited, including whether it can alter, amend, or abrogate any part of the Constitution to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights.

Contentions of Parties

Specifically, the petitioners challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. They argued that these amendments were an overreach and violated the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The petitioners, represented by the eminent lawyer N.A. Palkhivala, contended that while the Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure. This argument was rooted in the precedent set by Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan case.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by H.M. Seervai, argued that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was paramount and essential for fulfilling its socio-economic obligations. They asserted that limiting this power would hamper the legislative body’s ability to govern effectively.

Court Verdict on Kesavananda Bharati Case

On April 24, 1973, after 68 days of intense hearings, the Supreme Court delivered a voluminous 703-page judgment. The decision was a narrow 7:6 majority, where the court held that –

• While the Parliament had wide-ranging powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure.
• This doctrine meant that any constitutional amendment could not change the core principles and values that form the Constitution’s foundation.
• The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment entirely, while it found the first part of the 25th Amendment to be valid but declared the second part ultra vires.
• The judgment struck a balance between the need for Parliamentary Sovereignty and the protection of Fundamental Rights, ensuring that the Constitution’s essence remained intact.

Implications of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine has had profound implications for Indian democracy. It established that while the Constitution could evolve, its core principles—such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review—must remain inviolable. This doctrine has since been invoked in numerous cases to prevent potential overreach by the Parliament.

For instance, the doctrine was pivotal during the Emergency period in India (1975-77), when attempts were made to curtail Judicial Independence and Fundamental Rights. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment ensured that such attempts could be thwarted, preserving the Constitution’s democratic ethos.

Conclusion