Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461

Introduction

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is one of the most significant landmark cases in Indian constitutional law. In 1973, a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India put forward the Basic Structure Doctrine, that were limits the Parliament’s capacity to modify the Constitution under Article 368. The ruling arrived at a critical time, when the government had passed several amending the constitution aimed at limiting judiciary review and fundamental rights. This decision talked about a major conflict between parliamentary and constitutional first place.

• Full Name of the Case: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
• Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461
• Court: Supreme Court of India, Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges
• Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973

Facts of the Case

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner, was the leader of the Edneer Mutt, a place of worship in Kerala. He opposed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969, which attempted to put restrictions on his spiritual land and its management. At that point, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments that attempting for providing Parliament complete authority to change the Constitution, including provisions which that are related to fundamental rights. This trained a bigger constitutional the above paragraphs whether Parliament had infinite power to modify any portion of the Constitution. The person requesting the claimed that the new modifications failed to fulfil his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, and 19, limiting him of property and secular liberty.

Procedural History

A while back, in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, the Court of Appeals held that Parliament could not alter Fundamental Rights. To overruled that precedent, the government established the 24th Amendment, which produced it specific authority to change any part of the Constitution. This produced an instantaneous disagreement with judicial views, so the case was referred to the highest court in the nation for final understandings.

Issues before the Court

• Whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is absolute or subject to limitations.
• Whether Parliament can amend or abrogate Fundamental Rights.
• Whether there is a concept of a “Basic Structure” of the Constitution that cannot be amended.

Arguments by Both Sides

Petitioner’s arguments:

• Parliament receives its authority with the Constitutional; thus, it is unable to eliminate the document’s essential provisions.
• Fundamental entitlements are inherent and vital to the Constitution’s the concept of identity.
• The term ‘amend’ refers to improvements rather than destruction.

Respondents’ Arguments (State/Government):

• When it applies to a constitutional amendment, Government has ultimate power.
• Article 368 grants unequivocal authority to change any element of the Constitution.
• To achieve economic groups reforms (such as land redistribution), the fundamental liberties may need to be revised.

Judgment

The Supreme Court issued a rare split verdict:

Majority (7:6): Legislature has broad rights for modifying the Constitution, but it cannot influence or replace the Basic Structure.

The 24th Amendment has been upheld but only on the condition that it not be used for altering the core arrangement.

Sections of the 25th Amendment that were infringing fundamental rights and review by the judiciary were overturned.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court analysed the provisions of Article 368 and decided that, while Parliament might shift the Constitution, the phrase “amend” does not convey “destroy.” The document itself is based on several essential opinions, including open government, secularism, the federal system, the rule of law, separation of powers, rights that are fundamental, judicial independence, and judicial review. These are part of the basic framework. Parliament cannot utilize its relaxing power to eliminate these features.

The majority agreed that the Constitution, rather than Parliament, has the ultimate power. Parliament ought not to assume the authority that questioned the Constitution’s identity. This conclusion was formed on both a legal and moral-political recognition of Indian constitutionalism.

Dissenting Opinions

Six judges including Justice A.N. Ray dissented. They argued that:

• Parliament’s power under Article 368 is unlimited.
• The concept of “Basic Structure” has no textual basis in the Constitution.
• Judicial limitations on Parliament’s amending power undermine Parliamentary sovereignty and democratic will.

Significance and Impact (Basic Structure Doctrine)

• This decision passed the Basic Structure Doctrine, which ranks among the most significant doctrines in Indian constitutional law. It promises:
• A modification of the constitution cannot undermine the fundamental principles of democracy.
• Protects democracy and fundamental rights from administrative abuse.
• It has been used for subsequent instances, such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).
• It maintained a harmony between Parliament’s ability to modify and the document’s fundamental objectives. It was additionally enhanced judicial review.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati case performs the role of a safeguard for the Constitution’s persona. The decision emphasized that, while the Declaration of Independence is a dynamic, adaptable instrument, its foundational principles must remain unwavering. The Basic Structure Doctrine continues to administer Indian constitutional law, protecting citizens without unconstitutional or dictatorial modifications.

References 

• Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
• V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Bluebook Citations in body as required).