Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati (Head of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala)

Respondent: State of Kerala

Facts of the Case:

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended in 1969, which aimed to place restrictions on land holdings and aimed to distribute land for equitable access. Bharati filed the petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, contending that his rights to manage the property of the religious institution were infringed by the Act.

This case, however, quickly escalated into a constitutional matter because it involved not only land reforms but also fundamental questions about the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The case was filed at a time when there was intense debate over whether Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights and alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the Parliament had overstepped its boundaries by using Article 368 (amendment power) to infringe on the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

The case came in the backdrop of two prior landmark decisions:

1. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) – where the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.

2. Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) – where the Court had previously held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

The central issue was whether Parliament had unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, or if there were inherent limitations, specifically related to the basic structure of the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court:

• Extent of Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution: Does Article 368 give Parliament unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, or are there limits to this power?

• Basic Structure Doctrine: Can Parliament amend the Constitution in a way that alters its basic structure? What constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution?

• Impact on Fundamental Rights: Can Parliament, by amending the Constitution, take away or abridge fundamental rights? Does the right to property (Article 31) and the right to manage religious institutions (Article 26) form part of these basic features?

Decision of the Court:

The Kesavananda Bharati case was decided by a 13-judge bench, the largest in the history of the Indian Supreme Court. After a lengthy hearing, the Court delivered its judgment on April 24, 1973, with a 7:6 majority.

Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution: The Court ruled that Parliament does indeed have the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. However, this power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. This ruling meant that while Parliament could amend fundamental rights or other provisions, it could not destroy or damage the fundamental essence of the Constitution.

Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which held that there are certain basic features of the Constitution that cannot be amended or destroyed by Parliament, even through its amending power under Article 368. The Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, but it included the following elements:

• Supremacy of the Constitution

• Republican and Democratic form of government

• Secularism

• Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary

• Federalism

• Sovereignty and unity of India

• Judicial review

Fundamental Rights and Property Rights: The Court also ruled that fundamental rights form part of the basic structure, and while Parliament can amend these rights, it cannot abrogate them completely. The case also diminished the absolute nature of the right to property, which was removed as a fundamental right in 1978 by the 44th Amendment.

Outcome for Kesavananda Bharati: Though the case started as a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the focus shifted to the constitutional question. In the end, Bharati did not win on the land reform issue, as the Act was upheld by the Court. However, the larger question about Parliament’s amending power set a monumental precedent for constitutional law in India.

Case Analysis:

Impact on Constitutional Amendments: The Kesavananda Bharati case is regarded as the cornerstone of constitutional jurisprudence in India because it established the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine limits the power of Parliament to make amendments that alter the core philosophy and values of the Constitution. While Article 368 grants the power to amend the Constitution, this power is now subject to the limitations imposed by the basic structure.

Balancing Flexibility with Rigidity: The ruling struck a balance between the flexibility and rigidity of the Indian Constitution. It allowed for the Constitution to evolve through amendments while protecting its foundational principles. This ensured that no government or ruling party could undermine democratic values by altering key elements of the Constitution to suit their interests.

Protection of Fundamental Rights: The case also affirmed that fundamental rights cannot be completely taken away by amending the Constitution. While the right to property lost its status as a fundamental right in later amendments, other rights like the right to equality, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion remain central to the Constitution’s basic structure.

Judicial Review and Separation of Powers: The case reinforced the importance of judicial review, where courts have the power to review and strike down laws or constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure. The Court effectively became the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that neither the executive nor legislative branches could act beyond their constitutional authority. This enhanced the principle of separation of powers in India.

Political and Constitutional Impact: The Kesavananda Bharati case had immediate and long-term political implications. The judgment curbed the power of Indira Gandhi's government, which sought to consolidate power through constitutional amendments. It also set the stage for future constitutional challenges, such as the Minerva Mills case (1980), which further elaborated on the basic structure.

Importance of the Case:

1. Establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine: The Kesavananda Bharati case is hailed for introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, a principle that continues to be a safeguard against the misuse of parliamentary power. This doctrine ensures that core elements of the Constitution, such as democracy, federalism, and judicial independence, remain untouchable.

2. Limits on Amending Power: This case is significant for limiting the amending powers of Parliament. It guarantees that the Constitution remains a living document but one that cannot be easily manipulated by transient political majorities. Any amendment that violates the basic structure is subject to judicial review.

3. Protection of Democracy and Secularism: By ruling that democracy, secularism, and the rule of law form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the case safeguarded the democratic fabric of the nation. It prevents authoritarian shifts by ensuring that these key principles cannot be amended.

4. Judicial Supremacy: The case reinforced the role of the judiciary as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power to invalidate amendments that threaten the basic structure, ensuring the rule of law prevails over political ambitions.

The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a landmark judgment in the history of Indian constitutional law. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which serves as a safeguard against arbitrary constitutional amendments. The judgment not only curtailed the powers of Parliament but also reinforced the importance of judicial review in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. This case has become a guiding principle in maintaining the balance of power and preserving the core values of the Indian Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.