Judgement - Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr
Citation - (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
Introduction
It was during 1950-51, the government of India introduced Articles 31A and 31B through the First Constitutional Amendment, 1950. These two provisions allowed the government to acquire private property for public purposes and art. 31B introduced the 9th schedule- which gives judicial immunity to any laws if brought under its ambit. Laws in that schedule shall not be judicially reviewed. This amendment affected the right to property under the then 19(1) (f) of the Indian Constitution. Many important cases such as Shankari Prasad (1951)[1], Sajjan Singh (1965)[2], and Golaknath case (1967)[3] came up. The important question was identical in all cases, and they had produced contrary judgements till the Golaknath case.
These contradictions were resolved through the Kesavananda Bharati case[4], and the basic structure doctrine was introduced in India. It is rightly said that the judgement in the instant case brought an end to the conflict between the executive and the judiciary and proved to be a saviour of the democratic system and set up in the country.
The majority judgement in the case was pronounced by Chief Justice S.M.Sikri, Justice Hegde, Justice Mukherjee, Justice Shehlat, Justice Grover, Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice Khanna, and was dissented by Justice Ray, Justice Palekar, Justice Mathew, Justice Beg, Justice Dwivedi and Justice Chandrachud.
Facts of the case
Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious institution located in the Kasaragod district, of Kerala. Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned. The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the government could acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt. In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution[5]) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under:
- Article 25: Right to Practice & Propagate Religion
- Article 26: Right to Manage Religious Affairs
- Article 14: Right to Equality
- Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to Acquire Property
- Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition of Property
The Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 even as the petition was under the court’s consideration.
The contentions made by the petitioners brought to the fore the validity of various amendments that were brought in by the Parliament to nullify the effects of Golaknath v State of Punjab. The petitioners challenged, in particular, three constitutional amendments – the 24th Amendment, the 25th Amendment, and the 29th Amendment and their validity.
Issues of the case
- Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, of 1971 and the 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, of 1972 are constitutionally valid?
- The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.
- Whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, or abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights?
Contentions by both parties
Mr Palkhivala, Learned counsel for the petitioner side relied on the decision held in the Golaknath case of 1967. He also contended that any damage to fundamental rights should not be impermissible. He noted that parliament should not damage the fundamental rights of the citizens through the amending power it carries under Article 368[6] of the Indian Constitution. He regarded these fundamental rights as one of the basic ingredients or principles of the Indian Constitution. Lastly, he argued that the amending power is limited under Article 368 as per the preamble and the scheme of the constitution. The Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to change its basic structure as was set forth by Justice Mudholkar in the Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan case. They argued that the 24th & 25th Constitutional Amendments were violative of the Fundamental Rights provided in Article 19(1)(f).
On the other hand, Mr Seervai appearing for the respondent state and Union of India, argued that taking away the rights shall be permissible after the 24th amendment to the Indian Constitution. It was also argued that amending powers of the parliament has no limitations and shall be limited on the ground of repugnancy, inalienable rights, and preamble. The respondents stressed that to fulfil its socio-economic obligations the unlimited power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution must be upheld.
Judgement
Two main elements are to be understood from the historic verdict of the case. One is concerning the limitations on the amending powers of the parliament. Secondly, concerning the introduction of the Doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.
Firstly, the Supreme Court bench upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment and noted that Parliament should have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, which will also include fundamental rights under Part 3 of the Constitution. This is something that was implied in the Indian Constitution itself. It also upheld the decisions held in the cases of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh on whether the amendment is a law and stated that Constituent power is completely different from that of ordinary legislative powers.
Second and most importantly, it held that the power of the Parliament under Article 368 to amend the Constitution is limited in scope. It noted that there are no implied limitations on the powers of the amendment, and the rights which are enforceable under the Constitution shall remain as a basic part of the Constitution.
The court observed and held that basic structure elements are envisaged in the preamble and also in various provisions. It noted that the Indian Constitution is built on various properties, and if we remove them, such a constitution shall collapse. A few such include sovereign, democratic, republic, justice social, economic, political, equality, liberty of thought, etc. Thus, if we withdraw these elements, the identity of the Constitution shall not survive and shall result in vagueness and improperness in the system. Thus, this is the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
Analysis
The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs the State of Kerala as mentioned supra had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973. The majority of the bench (7:6) wished to safeguard the Constitution by preserving its basic features. The judgment was based on sound reasoning and it was given after a careful analysis of multifarious aspects. The bench opined that if the Parliament were to get unfettered power to amend, there were chances of that power being misused, and that governments would change it as per their preferences and whims. Such limitless powers vested in the hands of the government would mean that the basic features and also the very essence and spirit of the Indian Constitution could be changed. There was a need for a doctrine that could protect the rights of both the Indian Parliament and Indian citizens; the bench met this need halfway and came up with the basic structure doctrine, that protects the rights of both camps.
It is to be noted that while in the US, only 27 amendments have been made, India has seen over one hundred amendments since independence. Despite this big number, the spirit of the Constitution and also the ideas of the Constitution-makers have not been tampered with. It is because of the bench’s decision that the identity and spirit of the Constitution have not been lost. This landmark case has given our Constitution stability. Even though the petitioner lost this case partially, the SC ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case turned out to be a saviour for Indian democracy and also prevented the Constitution from losing its spirit.
[1]https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/A-Case-Analysis-Shankari-Prasad-v-Union-of-India-Supreme-Court
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1308308/
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594125/
