Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

• Case Title: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
• Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225
• Court: Supreme Court 
• Bench: S.M. Sikri (CJI), J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, K.K. Mathew, and P. Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ.
• Date of Judgement: April 24, 1973
• Key Provisions:

1. Constitution of India: Articles 13, 19, 21, 25, 26, 31, 368 
2. 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 
3. 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 
4. 29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972

Brief Facts

The verdict of the Keshavananda Bharti Case is often called the Jurisprudential shift in Indian Constitutional law. Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition under Article 32 that challenged the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969. He even mentioned that articles 25, 26, and 31were breached.  It was articulated by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which is the largest to date. It not only engaged with the conflict between the power of the parliament to amend the constitution and the citizens’ fundamental right, but also provided a perennial safeguard to the Basic Structure of Doctrine. The parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, expanding its power to amend the Constitution and judicial review related to land reforms. Thus sweeping the land reform laws and successive constitutional amendments in a way that restricted judicial review. 

But the question lies in whether the parliament is empowered to amend the constitution in such a way that it loses its essence? Even today, the decision stands firmly against authoritarianism and reaffirms the judiciary’s role and is a foundational pillar of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Issues Involved:

• Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
• Can fundamental rights be amended or abrogated?
• Are there inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament?
• What is the role of judicial review in safeguarding constitutional supremacy?
• Can constitutional amendments destroy or alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution?
• How should the courts balance parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy?

Arguments:

Petitioners’ Arguments (Kesavananda Bharati & others):

According to the petitioners, the Parliament’s power under Article 368 of the Constitution is not absolute. The constitution has restricted certain fundamental rights because they should not be exercised in a manner that destroys or abrogates these principles. The petitioners even argued that amendments 24th, 25th, and 29th were responsible for violating constitutional supremacy, as parliament is vested with unrestrained power. According to the petitioners, this unrestrained amending power might increase the risks of authoritarianism undermining democracy, secularism, and the rule of law. They relied generally on cases like the Shankari Prasad v Union of India and Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, which portray how constitutional amendments must be coherent with the Constitution’s fundamental principles.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

The Union of India argued that Parliament is responsible for representing the sovereign will of the people as elected representatives. According to the government, the parliament is endowed with the responsibility to amend any part of the constitution to uphold it as a living document. The respondents affirmed that constitutional amendments that are passed under Article 368 are not “law” within the meaning of Article 13. Thus, amendments cannot be declared unconstitutional by the courts, even if they affect fundamental rights. They emphasised a formalistic interpretation, asserting that Parliament’s amending power is supreme and unrestricted. The Union of India also justified the amendments 24th, 25th, and 29th as a mandatory part of the advancement related to land reforms. They also emphasised that they should respect the legislative branch, which is responsible for shaping constitutional law. 

Judgement:

Delivered by a narrow majority of 7:6, the Supreme Court held that:

Under Article 368, Parliament is endowed with the power to amend the Constitution. Although that doesn’t signify that its power is absolute, and it cannot alter the constitution in a way that destroys its essence.

It entirely endorsed the 24th Amendment. The 25th Amendment was partially upheld: the  Parliament could modify property rights, and the provision excluding judicial review (second part of Article 31C) was struck down. Similarly, the 29th Amendment, which imposed Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, was upheld, although it was subject to judicial review if any amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi:

According to the Supreme Court, Parliament can amend any provision in the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot destroy the essence of the Basic Doctrine. 

Obiter Dicta:

Democracy, secularism, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and federalism were identified as the core principles of the constitution. Several judges even considered the Constitution to be the legal document, but it is rather a social contract between the state and the people. 

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court received a historic 7-6 majority that further validated Parliament’s exclusive power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, along with the introduction of a new landmark, which was seen as the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had the power to amend until and unless it didn’t abrogate the essence of the Constitution. Thus, the doctrine has served as a powerful shield against authoritarian overreach and struck a balance between flexibility and permanence in the Constitution.