Kesvananda Bharti V State of Kerala

Kesvananada Bharti V.
State of kerala
Prepared by- Rishabh Kumar Ambashta(BBA-LLB)

Rashi Sharma(BBA-LLB)
Anushka(BA-LLB)
Plakshi Gupta(BBA-LLB)
Introduction
• Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) was the first case that established the basic
structure doctrine. It states that the legislative bodies must follow this doctrine while exercising
their amending powers.
• Though they are given the power to amend any part of the Constitution, they are not allowed to
amend the basic structure under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.
• It is one of the most landmark cases, where the Supreme Court formed a bench of thirteen judges
to make a decision in this matter. This decision of the judges, till now, has a major impact in our
society.
• It is a unique and thoughtful judgement passed by the Supreme Court. The judgement passed by
the bench was approximately 700 pages long and included a solution for both Parliament’s right to
modify laws under Article 368 and citizens’ right to safeguard their fundamental rights.
• The Kesavananda Bharati case is so important because it was the first case that came up with the
doctrine of basic structure in order to safeguard the interests of both the citizens as well as the
Parliament.
Historical Background
• In India, the three main branches of government function autonomously, each
fulfilling their distinct roles. While the legislature and executive collaborate closely,
the Indian judiciary is deliberately maintained as an independent entity. The
legislature makes laws, the executive enforces those laws, and the judiciary
adjudicates those laws.
• In the beginning of the 1970s, India witnessed a clash between two major powers,
the legislature and the judiciary. This led to this landmark judgement of Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala case.
• Before the 44th Amendment of the Constitution, the right to property was considered
a fundamental right. At that time, the Zamindars filed petitions in various high courts
stating that their fundamental rights were being violated by the enactment of agrarian
land reform laws. The High Court of Patna upheld the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Facts of the case
• Keshvananda Bharati, the petitioner in this case, was the chief of the Edneer Mutt,
which belonged to a religious sect in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. Kesavananda
Bharati had certain pieces of land in the sect that were purchased in his name.
• Therefore, he was the owner of that land. The State Government of Kerala
introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969, according to which the
government was entitled to acquire some of the sect’s land, of which Kesavananda
Bharati was the chief.
• Kesavananda Bharati filed the suit in the Supreme Court on 21st March, 1970,
under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for enforcement of his rights, which are
guaranteed under Article 25, Article 26, Article 14, and Article 31.
• When the petition was still under consideration by the court, the Kerala government
passed another act, i.e., the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act
Issues before the court
• Whether the Constitutional Amendment can be applied to fundamental
rights as per Article 368 of the Constitution?
• Whether the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971,
is valid or not?
• To what extent can Parliament exercise its power to amend the
Constitution?
• Parliament can stop judiciary from exercising his power under judicial
review?
Petitioner’s contentions
• It was contended by the petitioner that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in
whatever way they feel like. Unlimited power cannot be granted to them as there are chances of
it being misused. The Parliament cannot exercise its power to amend the constitution by
changing its basic structure which was earlier propounded by Justice Mudhokar in the case
of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. It was argued by him that the 24th and 25th Constitutional
Amendments violated the Fundamental Right, which was provided under Article 19(1)(f) of the
Indian Constitution. Some of the important points of the arguments are as follows:
• It was contended that Article 368 of the Constitution does not grant authority to change, amend,
or abrogate the basic framework of the Constitution or the fundamental rights of the citizens.
• It was also contended that the term ‘amendment’ does not mean the fundamental identity or
framework of the Constitution can be altered or destroyed while exercising the amending power.
• It was also argued that this amending power is granted by the Constitution itself and, therefore,
is subjected to inherent limitations. It was also contended that the Parliament is not given the
power to amend the fundamental rights of the citizens of India.
Respondent Contention
• The respondent was the state in this case. It was contended that the supremacy of Parliament is the
basic principle of the Indian legal system, and therefore, Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution without any limitations. Some of the important points of the arguments are as follows:
• The foremost contention made by the respondent was that Parliament is vested with unlimited
amending power to amend any part of the Constitution without any kind of exception. This power
is conferred on Parliament in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution.
• It was also contended that the term ‘amendment’ means that Article 368 of the Constitution can be
used to add, alter, modify, repeal, or abrogate any part of the Constitution. Another argument made
by the state was that there is no other inherent limitation to the amending power other than the
procedural as laid down in Article 368.
• It was also contended that the Indian Parliament is entrusted with the power to amend the
fundamental rights by abrogating or abolishing them if they think it is necessary to do so by
exercising its constituent power. It was also stated that the members of the Parliament are elected
by the people of India and therefore, can modify the fundamental laws according to the needs of
the citizens.
Reasoning behind the Judgment(Ratio decidendi)
• Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice
Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice A.N. Grover, Justice Hans Raj Khanna, and Justice
B.K. Mukherjea held the majority view, stating that the power to amend the
Constitution does not mean that the basic structure of the Constitution can also
be amended. It was held that the basic framework of the Constitution must not
be affected while amending any part of the Constitution.
• Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice A.N. Ray, Justice M.H.
Beg, Justice K.K. Mathew, and Justice SN Dwivedi stated that Article 368 has
the capacity to introduce, amend, or remove any articles of the Constitution,
aside from those that deal with fundamental rights. This power encompasses
the introduction, modification, and deletion of any or all of the articles of the
Constitution, with the exception of those that deal with basic rights.
• Apart from the above views, Justice Khanna observed that the
unlimited power to amend is not applicable to changing the basic
structure of the Constitution.
• Justice Mathew and Justice Ray concluded by agreeing with the notion
of plenary rights. According to them, the Indian Constitution cannot be
entirely repealed, creating a constitutionally void situation. They
contended that the reforms must provide for the existence of
government mechanisms in place for the creation, development,
interpretation, and enforcement of laws.
Judgment
• The decision of the Kesavananda Bharati case was passed on 24th April,
1973, by a slight majority of 7:6, where seven of the judges were in favour
of the view that the Indian Constitution is amenable like other Acts and
statutes.
• It was permitted by the judges so as to fulfill the socio-economic
obligations of the State that are given to the citizens of India. The
fundamental rights are granted to them and those rights can never be
changed by the Parliament by amending any of them.
• The basic structure must remain the same. Six of the judges, the minority,
who were against this judgement were of the opinion that the Parliament
must not be vested with the unlimited power of amending the Constitution.
• The landmark case was decided on 24th April 1973. The dissenting judgement
was given by other judges, who were still reluctant to give unfettered authority to
Parliament.
• The court upheld the constitutionality of the 24th Amendment entirely. But in the
case of 25th Amendment, the 1st and 2nd parts were found to be intra vires and
ultra vires, respectively. The Court, therefore, answered all those questions that
were previously left unanswered in the case of Golaknath in relation to the powers
of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• The answer to the question was found in this Kesavananda Bharati case, where
the court observed that the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to
the extent that such amendment does not change the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution.
• It was laid down by the court that the doctrine of basic structure is to be followed
by the Parliament while amending the provisions of the Constitution.
Implications of the judgement in Kesavananda Bharati
v. State of Kerala (1973)
• In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Clause (4) of Article 329-A of
the 39th Amendment Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, which provided that
the election issues of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha should be kept
outside the jurisdiction of all courts. The Supreme Court stated that this provision alters
the basic framework and structure of the Constitution, and therefore, Parliament has no
authority to amend it.
• In the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the doctrine of basic structure
was upheld by the Supreme Court. This landmark judgement is well known because of
the addition of two new features to the list of basic structure doctrine. Firstly, the feature
of judicial review was introduced, and secondly, a balance between fundamental rights
and directive principles was made. It was stated by the Supreme Court that the
Parliament is permitted to amend the fundamental rights for the implementation of the
directive principles so long as the amendment does not destroy or hamper the basic
structure of the Constitution.
Conclusion
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was one of the landmark cases that established Indian
democracy and the basic structure doctrine. It is one of the important constitutional cases that
safeguarded the fundamental rights of the citizens by stating that any amendment that is inconsistent
with the fundamental rights will be declared null and void. In this way, the Indian Judiciary limited
the amending power of the Legislature and established democracy.
• The majority of the judges in this case wished to protect the interests of the citizens by making
fundamental rights non-amendable. This case also laid down some major and significant precedents
for the interpretation of the Constitution. Such limitless power would lead to arbitrariness and
dictatorship, which would change the very essence and spirit of the Indian Constitution. In the cases
of Golaknath, Shankari Prasad, and Sajjan Singh, the basic structure doctrine was not given
importance. So in order to uphold democracy, the Indian judiciary, therefore, introduced a doctrine
that preserved the rights of the citizens without being infringed upon by any political parties.
Therefore, the basic structure doctrine also removes the fear of misuse or abuse of power by any
political party. This case, therefore, portrayed that the Indian Judiciary is independent and is not at
all influenced by any government. Thus, the constitutional values and foundation of the Constitution
were strengthened by this judgement.

Kesvananda Bharti V State of Kerala

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kesvananda Bharti V State of Kerala

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kesvananda Bharti V State of Kerala

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kesvananada Bharti V.

Prepared by- Rishabh Kumar Ambashta(BBA-LLB)

You might also like