The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) AIR 1973 SC 1461, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law, shaping the relationship between Parliament’s amendment powers and the fundamental structure of the Constitution. This case, decided by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's powers to amend the Constitution.
Background:
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. He contended that the Act infringed upon his fundamental rights to manage religious property under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and his right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (before the latter was repealed in 1978).
At the time, the Constitution had undergone a series of amendments that curtailed the power of judicial review and diluted Fundamental Rights. The most significant amendments included:
First Amendment, 1951: Allowed restrictions on freedom of speech and added Article 31A to protect land reform laws from judicial review.
Seventeenth Amendment, 1964: Expanded Article 31A to include more laws under its protection.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment, 1971: Empowered Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Twenty-Fifth Amendment, 1971: Allowed laws related to the redistribution of land and property to be beyond judicial review, limiting the scope of Article 31.
Issues for Consideration:
The key issue was whether Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 was unlimited, allowing it to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, or whether there were inherent limitations.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute. The court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that Parliament cannot amend or alter the “basic structure” or “essential features” of the Constitution. The specific elements of this doctrine include:
I. Supremacy of the Constitution
II. Rule of law
III. Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
IV. Secularism
V. Democratic and federal character of the Constitution
VI. Judicial review
VII. Sovereignty and unity of India
VIII. Fundamental Rights
The court ruled that the amendments introduced by the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments were valid but could not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The majority held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it must not damage its fundamental framework.
Relevant Sections:
Article 368: Powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Article 31: Right to property (repealed in 1978).
Article 19(1)(f): Right to property (repealed in 1978).
Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies (used by Kesavananda Bharati to challenge the Kerala land reforms law).
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Significance:
The Kesavananda Bharati case is considered a turning point in Indian constitutional history. The Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced to prevent the erosion of key constitutional principles. It balanced the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution with the need to preserve the Constitution's core values.
Illustration: If Parliament passes a law altering the democratic framework by extending a prime minister’s tenure indefinitely, such an amendment would be unconstitutional under the Basic Structure Doctrine, as it affects the democratic nature of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The judgment ensured that the Constitution is not just a document to be changed at will by Parliament but one that has a core identity to be preserved. The ruling also reaffirmed the principle of judicial review, wherein courts have the power to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure, safeguarding the Constitution’s essential features. The Kesavananda Bharati case remains one of the most important judicial pronouncements in Indian legal history, ensuring a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and the sanctity of the Constitution.
.png)
.png)
.png)
