Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, represented a precarious balance between Parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy. A key difference from the British Parliament, which is recognized to possess unlimited legislative powers, was that the Indian Parliament was bound by a written Constitution. However, the limit to Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution became a heated topic of discussion very quickly.

This tension culminated in the 1973 case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, decided by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest bench to sit in the history of the Supreme Court. The battle was taking place in heavy political warfare between the executive and judiciary in India, particularly surrounding land reforms, property rights, and the extent of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution, during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The extremely divided (7:6 majority) judgement created the Basic Structure doctrine, which is a key principle of Indian constitutional law, stating that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but cannot amend or destroy its “basic structure.”

Occasionally known as the “Constitutional Magna Carta of India,” this case has had a tremendous impact on the Indian democracy by ensuring certain fundamental features are protected against legislatively sanctioned upheavals of political majority, such as: rule of law, separation of powers, secularism, federalism, and judicial review.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner:

Kesavananda Bharati was the head (seer) of Edneer Mutt – a religious institution in Kasaragod, Kerala, which possessed a massive amount of land in the state.

Issue:

The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and its amendments in 1969 limited the ownership and management of land, which ultimately threatened the property rights of the Mutt. Therefore, Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition to the Supreme Court under Article 32 advancing that the constraints infringed his fundamental rights (especially the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31).

• Wider Constitutional Challenge: As a property dispute, this case rapidly evolved into a constitutional challenge against the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments:
• 24th Amendment (1971): expressly affirmed the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution – including fundamental rights.
• 25th Amendment (1971): effectively curtailed the right to property, reduced the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over socio-economic legislation, and introduced the ultimately interpretatively controversial Article 31C which gave primacy to Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights.
• 29th Amendment (1972): Placed Kerala’s land reform legislation in the Ninth Schedule, providing insulation from judicial review pursuant to Article 31B.

Previous Precedents in Conflict:

• In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) the Court recognized that Parliament has unlimited power to amend.
• Then in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) a slim majority rejected Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights under the rationale that “amend” did not extend to destroy.

Thus Kesavananda Bharati was allocated time to resolve the constitutional crisis regarding the scope of Article 368.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
2. Can Parliament amend and/or abrogate fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution?
3. Are there implied limits of Parliament’s amending power?
4. Is the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments sustainable? 

ARGUMENTS

Petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati & others)

• Amendment vs Rewriting: Only amendment is permitted under Article 368—not total rewriting.
• Parliament cannot fundamentally change the identity of the Constitution.Fundamental Rights as Basic Values: Fundamental rights are the spirit of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated.
• Limited Power Doctrine: Parliament is a creature of the Constitution and cannot destroy the essential features of the Constitution.
• Judicial Review: Eliminating judicial review would cause Parliament’s authority to be absolute and would violate constitutional supremacy.

Respondents (Union of India & State of Kerala)

• Unlimited amending power: Within Article 368, Parliament has unlimited amending power and can amend fundamental rights
• Sovereignty of Parliament: A constitution with rigidity will obstruct social justice and progressive reforms.
• The Prioritization of Directive Principles: Directive Principles (Part IV) should prioritize essential rights in order to attain socio-economic equality.
• Will of the People: Parliament reflects the will of the people; as representatives, courts can impose no restriction on their power.

JUDGMENT

The judgement of the Supreme Court was delivered on April 24, 1973. The judgement was approximately 700 pages long and had many concurrent and dissenting opinions.

1. Majority (7 judges): Parliament is endowed with wide power under Article 368. However, that power is not unqualified since it cannot amend the “basic structure” or “essential features” of the Constitution.
2. Minority (6 judges): Parliament is endowed with absolute authority to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

The Court upheld the 24th Amendment; upheld the 25th Amendment in part (excluding the aspect of judicial review); and upheld the 29th Amendment, on the condition that it passes the basic structure test.  

THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE

The judges didn’t catalogue every essential feature but articulated a few of them that belong to the basic structure of the Constitution:

• Supremacy of the Constitution.
  
• Rule of Law.
  
• Separation of Powers.
  
• Judicial Review.
  
• Federalism.
  
• Secularism.
  
• Democracy and parliamentary system of government.
  
• Free and fair elections.
  
• Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
  
• Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
  

It was a middle ground doctrine: it overruled Golak Nath (which meant that there could not be any amendment to the fundamental rights), but it also limited Parliament from exercising absolute supremacy.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

1. Judicial Guarantee of Democracy: A doctrine which prevented transient political majorities from nullifying the underlying constitutional value.
2. Bolstering Judicial Review: The judiciary retained the power to review amendments for contravention of the basic structure.
3. Political Fallout: This led to Franco-Gandhi relations spiralling and the result of that was the Emergency (1975-77) and more attempts to limit judicial independence in India.
4. Comparative Value and Influence:  Similar to the German “Eternity  Clause” (Article 79(3) of the Basic Law ) prohibiting the alteration of democratic and federal elements of the.
5. Subsequent Cases:

• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Struck down a constitutional amendment that insulated the election of the Prime Minister because of basic structure.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Restating the doctrine and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) – The doctrine was applied retrospectively to  post-1973 amendments.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Laws included in the Ninth Schedule were subject to review for contravening the basic structure.
  

Critical Analysis

The Kesavananda Bharati case represents a conversation between democracy and constitutionalism and this is how the spirit of the judgement survives:

Strengths of the Judgment:

• Safeguarded constitutional identity.
• Balanced flexibility and rigidity.
• Strengthened an empowered judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution.
  

Criticisms:

• Uncertainty: there is no clear list of “basic structure” features from the court; they were left to the interpretive powers of judges.
• Judicial Overreach: unelected referees that restrict the will of elected representatives.
• Political Ramifications: Forced a new stage of tension between the judiciary and executive.

For more than five decades the doctrine has existed, endorsed by generation after generation of benches, proving of utmost importance in the protection of India’s democratic spirit.

CONCLUSION

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, without a doubt, is the most important decision in the constitutional history of India. It answered the question definitively; Parliament is very strong, but it is not all powerful: its amending power is to be amenable to projection from the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Basic Structure Doctrine gives hope against autocracy and constitutional bypass. It ensured that democracy, secularism and judicial review would persist through the political turbulence.

It created a harmony between constitutional flexibility and permanence of values at the core of the Constitution; this case reaffirmed the endurance of Indian constitutionalism.

REFERENCES 

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
   
2. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 458.
   
3. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 845.
   
4. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643.
   
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp S.C.C. 1.
   
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625.
   
7. Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 S.C.C. 362.
   
8. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1.
   
9. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian Experience (Oxford Univ. Press 1999).
10. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed., LexisNexis 2018).