Kesavananda Bharati Case & Basic Structure Doctrine – Supreme Court Landmark Judgment
Introduction
- The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, delivered in 1973. The case arose from a challenge to the 24th and 25th Amendments to the Constitution of India, which had been passed by the Indian Parliament in 1971 and 1972, respectively.
- The 24th Amendment abolished the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments. The 25th Amendment further restricted the power of judicial review by providing that no law enacted in pursuance of the Directive Principles of State Policy could be challenged on the ground that it violated any of the fundamental rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu religious institution in Kerala, was the petitioner in the case. He challenged the 24th and 25th Amendments on the ground that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Background
- The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is a landmark judgment in the history of Indian constitutional law. It redefined the balance between individual fundamental rights and Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
- During the 1950s and 60s, the Kerala government implemented land reform laws to address social inequality by redistributing land from large landowners to the landless and marginalized communities.
- In 1963, the Kerala Land Reforms Act was passed. It imposed restrictions on land ownership and empowered the state to acquire surplus land for redistribution to others. Religious institutions, including Edneer Mutt, were affected by the legislation. Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt, challenged the Act because the Mutt owned significant land which was now under threat of acquisition.
- The 1969 and 1971 Constitutional amendments increased Parliament's powers over property and land reforms, limited judicial review, making it harder for courts to strike down laws that violated Fundamental Rights.
- On March 21, 1970, Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Constitutional Amendments were made to shield it.
Issues
- Can Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution using its powers under Article 368?
- Does Article 368 allow Parliament to alter any part of the Constitution? Or is there a limit to this power?
- Were the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments passed to override previous Supreme Court decisions that restricted Parliament's amendment powers?
Arguments Submitted
- Arguments of the Petitioner
- The petitioner claimed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14, 19 (1)(f), 25, and 26 were violated by land acquisition laws and amendments that shielded such laws.
- Amendments that alter or destroy the basic structure (like the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence, etc.) are unconstitutional.
- The petitioner submitted that Article 368 provides Parliament with the power to amend, not the power to destroy or rewrite the Constitution. Amending power is not equal to constituent power.
- Amendments like the 24th and 25th tried to limit the power of courts to review constitutional changes.
- The petitioner argued that the Right to Property (Article 19(1)(f)) is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away without due process of law. Laws and amendments that allowed compulsory acquisition without fair safeguards are unconstitutional.
- Arguments of the Respondent
- The Government of India argued that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.
- The government also argued that the "basic structure" doctrine is vague and undefined and would lead to judicial overreach.
Gist of the Judgment.
Gist of the Judgment
- The Supreme Court delivered a split 7:6 majority judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Seven judges of the thirteen-judge bench held that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, but this power is not unlimited.
- The seven judges also held that fundamental rights are an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away or abridged by Parliament. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
- The six dissenting judges held that Parliament had the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. The dissenting judges also held that the basic structure doctrine is vague and undefined, potentially leading to judicial overreach.
- The Court held that Parliament does have the authority to amend the Constitution, but emphasized that this power is not absolute. It cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that certain principles, including the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights, form the Constitution's core framework, which cannot be amended.
- The Court reaffirmed its right to review amendments made by Parliament. It stated that any amendment infringing upon the basic structure would be unconstitutional.
Effects of the Judgment
- The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is one of the most important judgments in the history of the Supreme Court of India. It established the principle that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, but this power is not unlimited.
- The judgment also established the basic structure doctrine, which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are beyond the reach of Parliament's amending power and safeguards the fundamental principles and ideals of the Indian Constitution.
- The Supreme Court upheld judicial review as part of the basic structure, declaring amendments that infringe on it unconstitutional, thus reinforcing the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional values.
Scenario Before the Judgment
- Before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, there was uncertainty about the scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
- Some earlier judgments, like Shankari Prasad (1951), upheld Parliament's unlimited power. However, in Golak Nath (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
Conclusion
Post the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, Parliament has amended the Constitution more than 60 times. However, the Supreme Court has struck down a few constitutional amendments on the ground that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment has played a vital role in protecting the fundamental rights of the Indian people and in safeguarding the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws and uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the government is subject to the Constitution and cannot violate the fundamental rights of citizens. Overall, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment has made a significant contribution to Indian democracy.
