Constitution Case Commentary Series – KESAVANANDA BHARATI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Constitution Case Commentary Series - KESAVANANDA BHARATI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

11 Jun, 2022

Author – Deva Dharshini K, 4th year B.A., LL.B, Chennai Dr Ambedkar Govt law college Pudupakkam.

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history. The early 1970s face-off between India’s top democratic institutions, the Judiciary and the Legislature, was one of the most well-known and significant, as it resulted in the landmark judgement of Keshwanand Bharati v. State of Kerala. The case, in which Bharati challenged a Kerala Land Reform Act nearly four decades ago, established the notion that the Supreme Court is the defender of the constitution’s core framework, and the ruling featured 13 judges, the Supreme Court’s largest bench ever. The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala was heard for 68 days and is still the record holder for the longest Supreme Court hearings ever. The case of Kesavananda Bharati is noteworthy because it established that the Constitution can be modified but not the fundamental framework.[1]

CourtSupreme Court of India
Full Case NameKesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Decided24 April 1973
Citation(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
Judges SittingSikri, C. J., A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar, H. R. Khanna, J. M. Shelat, K. K. Mathew, K. S. Hegde, M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S. N. Dwivedi, Y. V. Chandrachud
Provisions InvolvedArticle 25,26,14,19(1)(f),31 & 24, 25 and 29th Constitution Amendment

 The facts of the case are as follows: Keshvananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in Kerala’s Kasaragod district. In the sect, Kesavananda Bharati had specific plots of land that he owned in his name. Kerala’s state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. The government had the right under the statute to take away portion of the sect’s land, of which Kesavananda Bharati was the head. On March 21, 1970, Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32[2] of the Indian Constitution, seeking enforcement of his rights guaranteed by Articles 25 (Right to practise and propagate religion), 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), 14 (Right to equality), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), and 31 (Right to manage religious affairs) (Compulsory Acquisition of Property). The Kerala Government passed another statute, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, while the petition was still being considered by the court. Following the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, Parliament enacted a series of amendments to overturn the Golaknath decision.[3]

 The 24th Amendment was ratified in 1971. The 25th and 29th Amendments were ratified in 1972. According to this Act, the government could take over some of the Mutt’s lands. In March 1970, Bharati petitioned the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to have his constitutional rights enforced.

  • 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

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Is the 24th Amendment to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1971 constitutionally valid?
  • Is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1972 constitutionally valid?[4]
  • The extent to which Parliament can use its constitutional amendment powers

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioner argued that the Parliament can’t change the Constitution in the way they desire because they only have limited ability to do so. As Justice Mudhokar argued in the case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, Parliament cannot modify the constitution by changing its core framework. Under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner pleaded for the protection of his property. He stated that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments infringed on Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights. Fundamental Rights are rights that citizens of India have to ensure their freedom, and if a constitutional amendment removes such a right, the freedom that the Constitution guarantees to its residents is seen to be taken away from them.[5]

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The State was the respondent. The State argued that because the Supremacy of Parliament is a fundamental foundation of the Indian legal system, Parliament has infinite power to modify the Constitution. The state further argued that in order to meet its socio-economic commitments, which are guaranteed to Indian citizens under the Preamble, Parliament must exercise its ability to alter the constitution without restriction. Basic Structure Doctrine The basic structure concept says that Parliament has unrestricted freedom to amend the Constitution, provided that such alterations do not alter the Constitution’s fundamental structure. The bench made no reference to the Constitution’s essential structure, leaving it to the courts to interpret. This was later confirmed by the Supreme Court in a number of other decisions. The court argued that the term “amend” used in Article 368 does not refer to changes to the Constitution’s fundamental structure. If Parliament wants to change a constitutional provision, it must pass the ‘basic structure’ test first.[6]

 JUDGEMENT

The majority of the court wanted to protect the Constitution by keeping its core principles. The decision was founded on reasonable reasoning and came after a thorough examination of numerous factors. The bench ruled that if Parliament were given unrestricted amending power, there was a risk that it would be abused, and that governments would change it according to their own tastes and whims. With such broad powers in the hands of the government, the core characteristics, as well as the meaning and spirit of the Indian Constitution, could be altered. There was a need for a doctrine that would safeguard both the rights of the Indian Parliament and the rights of Indian citizens; the bench met this demand halfway and came up with the basic structure doctrine, which protects both parties’ rights. [7] The landmark judgement was delivered on April 24, 1973, by a razor-thin majority of 7:6, holding that the Parliament can amend any provision of the Indian Constitution in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations to citizens as stated in the Preamble, as long as the amendment did not change the Constitution’s basic structure. The minority, on the other hand, was leery about giving the Parliament unrestricted amending powers. It’s worth noting that, although the United States has only witnessed 27 amendments since independence, India has seen over a hundred. Despite this large number, the spirit of the Constitution, as well as the principles of the framers, have been preserved. The identity and spirit of the Constitution have not been lost as a result of the bench’s decision. Our Constitution has gained solidity as a result of this important judgement. Even though the petitioner lost part of the case, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case saved Indian democracy and stopped the Constitution from losing its spirit.[8]

[1] Pragya Nagpal, Case comment: Kesavananda Bharati v/s State of Kerala, Legalserviceindia, (May. 23, 2022, Time: 2.45pm), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6026-case-comment-kesavananda-bharati-v-s-state-of-kerala.html

[2] Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973, Indian kanoon, (May. 25, 2022, Time: 2.45pm) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/

[3] Kesavananda Bharati Case – An Overview of the Case and the Supreme Court Judgement, Byjus, (May. 23, 2022, Time: 7.20pm) https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements/

[4] Abanti Bose, 25th Amendment of the Indian Constitution, Blogipleaders,  (May. 27, 2022, Time: 11.45am) https://blog-ipleaders-in.cdn.ampproject.org,

[5] Basic Structure Doctrine: Kesavananda Bharati Case, Drishti IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/basic-structure-doctrine-kesavananda-bharati-case

[6] Ibid

[7] Supra Note 1

[8] Supra Note 3