(Decided on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India)
The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most significant constitutional law decisions in India. The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority (7:6), laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a way that destroys or alters its “basic features.”Below is an overview of the background of the case, the arguments (or “strategies”) advanced by each side, and the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.
1. Background
Below is an overview of the background of the case, the arguments (or “strategies”) advanced by each side, and the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court.
1. Parties Involved
– Petitioner (often referred to as “prosecution” in a broader legal sense, though in Indian constitutional matters, it is more accurate to say “petitioner”): His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the head (Mathadhipathi) of Edneer Math in Kerala.
– Respondent (often called “defendant” in a broader sense, but in Indian constitutional law, typically “State” or “respondent”): The State of Kerala.
2. Factual Context
– Kesavananda Bharati owned certain lands in Kerala that were subject to the state’s land-reform legislation, which aimed to redistribute land.
– The petitioner claimed that these reforms and certain constitutional amendments (especially the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments) curtailed his fundamental rights to property and religious practice.
3. Key Constitutional Questions
– To what extent can the Parliament amend the Constitution?
– Can Parliament amend or abridge fundamental rights (like the right to property) in the name of public interest or socio-economic reforms?
– Is there a core or basic structure to the Constitution that cannot be altered, even by the amending power of Parliament?
2. Strategy of the Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati)
1. Challenge to Land Reforms and Amendments
– Core Argument: The petitioner argued that the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the subsequent constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, and 29th) violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution, notably Article 25 (right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion), Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and the constitutional provisions on the right to property (as they existed then under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31).
2. Invoking Earlier Precedents
– The petitioner relied on Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967), which held that Parliament could not abridge or take away fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
– The petitioner’s team insisted that fundamental rights are so integral to the Constitution that Parliament cannot use its amending power to take these rights away or drastically curtail them.
3. Principle of Limited Amending Power
– The petitioner advanced the idea that the Constitution is based on certain essential or basic features (e.g., judicial review, rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights).
– Their contention was that if Parliament had limitless power to amend, it could destroy essential checks and balances, turning the Constitution into something unrecognizable.
4. Strategic Emphasis on the “Spiritual” or “Religious” Nature of Property
– Since Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a religious Math, the argument emphasized that land attached to a religious institution was not merely private property but part of the institution’s religious and charitable activities protected by the Constitution.
– This was a strategic move to frame the land-reform legislation as curtailing religious freedom rather than a purely economic or property-right dispute.
3. Strategy of the Respondent (State of Kerala)
1. Assertion of Parliament’s Sovereign Amending Power
– The State of Kerala, along with the Union of India (as intervenors in some respects), argued that Article 368 of the Constitution grants Parliament wide powers to amend the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights.
– Their position was that socio-economic reforms—especially land redistribution—are vital for public welfare and have constitutional backing.
2. Reliance on Past Amendments and Provisions
– The State underlined the 24th Amendment, which explicitly conferred on Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, effectively overruling the Golak Nath decision.
– The 25th Amendment modified the right to property by substituting “compensation” with “amount,” giving the government more leeway in acquiring private property for public purposes.
3. Argument of Social Justice and Directive Principles
– Kerala invoked the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution) to justify land-reform legislation aimed at achieving economic and social justice.
– The State argued that fundamental rights must be balanced against the broader objectives of the Constitution—namely, the creation of an egalitarian society.
– They contended that if fundamental rights (especially property rights) were to trump every social policy, it would undermine the Constitution’s mandate for socio-economic transformation.
4. Emphasis on Political Legitimacy and Democracy
– The State’s counsel argued that India’s elected Parliament had the democratic legitimacy to amend the Constitution to meet changing societal needs.
– A too-restrictive interpretation of the amending power, they maintained, would hinder necessary reforms, especially those concerning land redistribution, which were crucial to address historical inequalities.
4. The Supreme Court’s Decision and Key Takeaways
1. The Basic Structure Doctrine
– The Supreme Court held (by a 7:6 majority) that while Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide, it is not unlimited.
– Certain features—like the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review—form the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be destroyed even through a constitutional amendment.
2. Outcome for the Amendments
– The 24th Amendment was upheld as it only clarified Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
– The 25th Amendment was partially upheld, with the Court reading down parts that could be interpreted as denying judicial review or abrogating the right to property without any compensation mechanism.
– The 29th Amendment’s inclusion of certain land-reform acts in the Ninth Schedule (shielding them from judicial review of fundamental-rights violations) was also examined against the backdrop of the newly articulated basic structure doctrine.
3. Shifting the Right to Property
– Although the Kesavananda Bharati case did not remove the right to property outright (that would happen later via the 44th Amendment in 1978), it restricted Parliament’s ability to abridge fundamental rights without regard for the Constitution’s basic structure.
4. Long-term Consequence
– This judgment became the bedrock for future judicial review in cases where constitutional amendments were challenged—e.g., Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980), Waman Rao vs. Union of India (1981), and others.
5. Summary of Strategies
Petitioner’s (Kesavananda Bharati) Strategy
Legal Pillar: Argued that fundamental rights (property, religion) could not be curtailed without violating the Constitution’s core.
Precedential Support: Relied heavily on Golak Nath (1967), which had placed restrictions on Parliament’s amending power regarding fundamental rights.
Conceptual Development: Pioneered the argument (ultimately embraced by the Court) that there exists a basic structure of the Constitution beyond Parliament’s absolute reach.
Religious Freedom: Framed the land-reform laws as infringing not just property rights but also religious freedoms of a religious institution.
Respondent’s (State of Kerala) Strategy
Plenary Amending Power: Argued that Article 368 gives Parliament supreme power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Public Welfare and Directive Principles: Emphasized the necessity of land reforms for social justice, relying on the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Democratic Will: Maintained that elected representatives must have the capacity to respond to societal needs through constitutional amendments.
Constitutional Provisions: Cited the 24th and 25th Amendments to show that Parliament had explicitly expanded its amending power, thus legitimizing the land-reform measures in question.
6. Concluding Remarks
The Kesavananda Bharati verdict established a historic balance between constitutional
flexibility (allowing Parliament to amend) and constitutional integrity (protecting fundamental features from erosion). The strategies of both sides revolved around reconciling two competing visions:
Petitioner: Preservation of essential individual and religious rights, arguing for inherent constitutional limitations.
State: Advocacy of broad legislative and amending powers to achieve socio-economic objectives.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s Basic Structure Doctrine emerged as the middle path, ensuring neither unchecked legislative supremacy nor absolute immutability of the Constitution. This doctrine continues to shape Indian constitutional jurisprudence to this day.
Comments