Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Case Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225; Judges: 13

Preliminary Case Details

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgement: April 24, 1973.

Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner and appellant.

Respondent: State of Kerala.

The Indian Constitution was involved.

Important Articles Involved: Articles 13, 368, 31C

Abstract

The Kesavananda Bharati case developed the structural idea that underpins the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in a tight 7:6 ruling that the parliament may change any element of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot change or abolish the Constitution's essential framework or organization. The core framework of the Constitution is one of its most important components, giving it character and coherence. This landmark decision was a watershed point in Indian constitutional law because it upheld the rule of law and limited the parliament's arbitrary use of its power through judicial scrutiny.

Keywords: basic framework, parliament's ability to modify the constitution, judicial oversight, and rule of law.

Facts of the Kesavananda Bharati Case

The leader of a Hindu mutt in Kerala, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, contested land reform measures taken by the government of Kerala in 1970, which placed limitations on the administration of religious estates. The freedom to administer property owned by a religion is protected by Article 26 of the Constitution, which is the basis for the challenge.

The principal question of law that arose was whether the parliament's limitless authority to amend the Constitution pursuant to Article 368 encompassed the modification of basic rights. Although Article 368 outlines the process for amendment, it makes no mention of restrictions on the amending authority.

Arguments in the case were heard by a 13-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench, the largest ever assembled. The main concerns were whether or not there were any implicit restrictions on parliament's modifying authority and whether or not a constitutional amendment may restrict or eliminate fundamental rights.

Legal Issues Raised in Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Court was presented with the following primary legal issues:

• Determine if Article 368's amending power is unrestricted or has implied limitations.

• Can parliament change fundamental rights under Part III

· Nature of Article 368 – does it confer power or only procedure for amendment.

· Validity of 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts.

· Constitutional validity of Article 31C inserted by Section 3 of 25th Amendment.

Petitioner’s Arguments

On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that:

· Article 368 does not grant authority to change, amend, or repeal the Constitution's essential provisions or fundamental rights.

· The term "amendment" implies that modifying authority cannot change or destroy the identity or framework of the Constitution.

· Article 368 only specifies how amendments must be made. The Constitution itself grants the authority to amend, although there are explicit and implicit restrictions on this ability.

· According to Article 13, amendments to the Constitution enacted under Article 368 are considered "law". An amendment that violates fundamental rights would be null and void.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents contended that:

· Article 368 grants the parliament complete and unrestricted authority to change any provision of the Constitution, without any limitations.

· Article 368's definition of "amendment" refers to the ability to add, change, abolish, or abrogate any clause in the Constitution.

· The Parliament is the ultimate representative of the people and has the authority to amend the fundamental legislation to suit changing circumstances.

Related Legal Provisions and Doctrines

The relevant legal concepts and doctrines involved were:

· The basic structure concept states that certain parts of the Constitution cannot be amended.

· According to Article 13(2), laws that conflict with or violate basic rights are invalid.

· Article 368 empowers parliament to modify the Constitution and its procedures.

· Theory of prospective overruling as propounded in Golak Nath case.

· Principle of separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary.

Judgement (Ratio Decidendi) of Kesavananda Bharati Case

By a thin majority of 7:6, the Court held that:

· Parliament has broad rights to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but cannot completely change its structue or foundation.

· Though there are no express limitations on the amending power, there are implied limitations arising from the very nature of the Constitution. The basic structure binds and limits parliament’s amending powers.

· A few fundamental tenets that are unchangeable are the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic systems of government, the secular nature of the document, the division of powers, etc.

· Part of the fundamental framework is judicial review. Article 31C was unconstitutional because it violated the fundamental structure and excluded judicial review.

· Section 2 and the first part of Section 3 of the 25th Amendment were upheld, while the second half of Section 3 was knocked down. The 24th and 29th Amendments were deemed to be genuine.

The majority reversed Golak Nath solely in relation to upcoming revisions, upholding it prospectively. From Kesavananda Bharati onward, constitutional revisions were to be tested on the anvil of the fundamental framework.

Conclusion and Comments

Kesavananda Bharati marked a critical turning point in the development of Indian judicial review and constitutional law. The case upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, marking a shift in power toward the judiciary and a curb on unbridled parliamentary power. Because the concept of basic structure imposed inherent limitations on parliament's amending powers, it heightened judicial scrutiny of constitutional changes. It provided the Supreme Court the right to annul any amendment that altered or contradicted the Constitution's core foundation. This ensured that the fundamental ideas held true even when requirements and circumstances changed.Critics counter that by limiting the role of parliament, the theory is undemocratic and impedes social reform. Judges' interpretations can be interpreted subjectively when the fundamental structure is unclear. Kesavananda's differing viewpoints have led to misunderstandings and doubts about the doctrine's applicability and extent. The theory has been upheld over time in decisions such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, It has also been used to invalidate revisions that violate democracy, the independence of the judiciary, secularism, and other essential norms. It continues to serve as the foundation for constitutional interpretation. In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court's unique judicial artistry and constitutional statesmanship significantly improved the Constitution's strength and durability. It established constitutional supremacy and the rule of law as permanent basic values.

References

· Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, para 296, 316
· Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘The Inner Conflict of Constitutionalism: Judicial Review and the Basic Structure’ in India’s Living Constitution (2002).
· UPENDRA BAXI, THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT AND POLITICS (Eastern Book Company, 1980).

· The Constitution of India, Article 13(2).

· The Constitution of India, Article 368.

· I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.

· Kesavananda Bharati, para 811.