Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Introduction

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the most significant decisions in the history of constitutional law in India. The Supreme Court, in this landmark judgment, established the basic structure doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The case marked a turning point in India’s legal and political landscape, shaping the balance between constitutional supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty.

Historical Context

Before Kesavananda Bharati, India was witnessing an intense struggle between Parliament and the judiciary regarding constitutional amendments. The first major conflict arose in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), where the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368. However, in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed this ruling and held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, leading to a legislative backlash.

In response, the government passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, reinforcing Parliament’s amending powers and placing certain laws beyond judicial review. This set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case, which sought to resolve the issue definitively.

Background of the Case

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the Kerala government’s land reform laws, which aimed to acquire the mutt’s property. His petition contested the validity of these laws, arguing that they violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 of the Indian Constitution. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) arose during a crucial period in India’s constitutional history, marked by tensions between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. It was the culmination of a long-standing debate over the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly with regard to fundamental rights.

Post-Independence Constitutional Developments

India adopted its Constitution on January 26, 1950, establishing a sovereign democratic republic with fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. These rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech, and protection of life and property, were meant to be inviolable. However, early on, the question arose: Could Parliament amend these fundamental rights?

This debate first came to the forefront in the 1951 case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights under Article 368. This ruling allowed Parliament to pass the First Amendment, which curtailed the right to property and inserted the Ninth Schedule to protect certain laws from judicial review, particularly land reform laws aimed at redistributing land to the poor.

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its stance, stating that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was absolute. However, dissenting opinions in this case foreshadowed the eventual shift in judicial thinking.

A major turning point came in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court, in a dramatic reversal, ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that fundamental rights were the heart of the Constitution and could not be altered, even by a constitutional amendment. This ruling put Parliament in a difficult position, as it threatened land reform and other socialist measures pursued by the government.

Political Context and the Passage of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments

The Congress government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was committed to implementing socio-economic reforms, including land redistribution. To counter the Golak Nath ruling, the government passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments between 1971 and 1972:

• 24th Amendment (1971): Explicitly affirmed that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• 25th Amendment (1972): Weakened the right to property and introduced the concept of Directive Principles having primacy over fundamental rights in certain cases.
• 29th Amendment (1972): Placed additional land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, making them immune from judicial review.

These amendments sparked nationwide debates and legal challenges, leading to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court’s thirteen-judge bench, the largest ever constituted in India, considered the following key issues:

1. Whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
2. Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were valid.
3. Whether the power of amendment under Article 368 was subject to judicial review.
4. Whether there were implied limitations on Parliament’s amending power.
5. Whether the balance between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights should be maintained or whether one could override the other.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati and Others)

• The petitioners, represented by eminent lawyers like Nani Palkhivala, argued that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, as doing so would destroy its basic structure.
• They contended that the amending power under Article 368 was not absolute and was subject to inherent limitations.
• They emphasized that the Constitution was not just a legal document but a social contract meant to uphold democracy, justice, liberty, and equality.
• The petitioners challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, arguing that they violated fundamental rights and disrupted the balance of power between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
• They also contended that an unlimited power of amendment would allow Parliament to completely change the democratic nature of the Constitution, thus jeopardizing civil liberties.

Respondents (State of Kerala and Union of India)

• The government, represented by the Attorney General, argued that Parliament had absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• They contended that limiting Parliament’s power would be undemocratic and against the sovereign will of the people, as the Constitution was amendable to meet the evolving needs of society.
• The government also argued that socio-economic justice, a core principle of the Constitution, required redistributive land reforms, which necessitated amendments to property rights.
• The respondents emphasized that the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly relating to land reforms, required constitutional amendments to ensure economic equality.

Judgment and Legal Reasoning

On April 24, 1973, after a lengthy hearing, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict with a thin majority of 7:6. The key rulings were:

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court ruled that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it could not alter or destroy its “basic structure.” This doctrine placed substantive limitations on Parliament’s amending power.
2. Validity of the 24th Amendment: The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, which clarified that Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights, but subject to the basic structure.
3. Validity of the 25th Amendment: The Court partially upheld the 25th Amendment but struck down the provision that barred judicial review of laws enacted to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
4. Validity of the 29th Amendment: The Court upheld the inclusion of certain land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule but maintained that they were subject to judicial review.

Opinions of the Judges

The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, held that the Constitution had certain fundamental principles that could not be amended. Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, and Jaganmohan Reddy concurred, stating that Parliament could amend any provision but not in a manner that destroyed the Constitution’s essential character.

The dissenting judges, led by Justice A.N. Ray, argued that Article 368 granted Parliament unlimited amending power and that imposing restrictions would be against the democratic principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Basic Structure Doctrine – Key Elements

The Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constituted the basic structure, but over time, certain elements have been identified:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of India
3. Secularism and separation of powers
4. Federalism
5. Unity and integrity of the nation
6. Judicial review and independence of the judiciary
7. Parliamentary system of governance
8. Rule of law
9. Free and fair elections
10. Fundamental rights and dignity of the individual
11. Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

Post-Judgment Developments

Indira Gandhi’s Response and the 42nd Amendment (1976)

In response to the judgment, the government led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi attempted to nullify the basic structure doctrine through the 42nd Amendment, which sought to make amendments beyond judicial review. However, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, further solidifying the principles laid down in Kesavananda Bharati.

Long-Term Legal Implications

1. Judicial Supremacy: The case reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that Parliament did not overstep its powers.
2. Parliamentary Limitations: The ruling set a precedent that constitutional amendments could not destroy essential features of the Constitution, maintaining its democratic structure.
3. Future Challenges: Over the years, courts have used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that violate core principles, reinforcing constitutional stability.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The introduction of the basic structure doctrine ensured that while the Constitution could evolve to meet changing needs, its core principles would remain protected. This judgment has had a profound impact on constitutional interpretation, safeguarding democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial independence in India. Even after five decades, its principles continue to shape the Indian legal and political system, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution over transient political interests.

CITATIONS:

1. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1973) Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MzI1NTk%3D (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
2. Arvind P. Datar, The Case That Saved Indian Democracy, The Hindu (Apr. 24, 2013), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-case-that-saved-indian-democracy/article4647801.ece (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
3. T.R. Andhyarujina, The Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Untold Story of Struggle for Supremacy by Supreme Court and Parliament (Universal Law Publ’g Co. 2011).
4. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1101 (LexisNexis 2018).
5. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Oxford Univ. Press 2009).
6. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Indian Supreme Court and the Art of Democratic Positioning, in Unstable Constitutionalism: Law and Politics in South Asia 233 (Mark Tushnet & Madhav Khosla eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2015).
7. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) Supp. S.C.R. 1, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1799884/ (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
8. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.R. 1, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/ (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 S.C.R. 1, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1100349/ (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
10. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.R. 1, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/ (accessed Feb. 26, 2025).
11. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 3072 (Universal Law Publ’g Co. 1991).