Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala by Shephali Yadav

Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala- by Shephali Yadav

Equivalent Citation – AIR 1973 SC 1461

Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors

Respondent:State of Kerala and Anr

Date of Judgement: 24/04/1973

Bench:Sikri, S.M. (Cj) Shelat, J.M., Hegde, K.S. & Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N. & Reddy, P.J. & Palekar, D.G., Khanna, Hans Raj Mathew, K.K. & Beg, M.H., Dwivedi, S.N. Mukherjea, B.K. Chandrachud, Y.V.

Referred Cases: I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anrs.

INTRODUCTION

Kesavananda Bharati is a landmark case and the decision taken by the Supreme Court outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. The decision which was given by the bench in Kesavananda Bharati’s case was very unique and thoughtful. The Kesavananda Bharati case was popularly known as fundamental rights case. Under this case Supreme Court of India sketched out the Basic Structure precept of the Constitution which structures and gives fundamental forces to the Indian Judiciary to review or correct the arrangements of the constitution authorized by the Parliament of India which conflict with or look to change the essential structure of the constitution. The question in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala is whether the ability to change the constitution is a limitless, or there is recognizable boundaries with respect to forces to correct the constitution.

BACKGROUND:

Prior to moving to the facts and Judgment of the case one must know the background of the case:

The Bench through this arrangement settled the inquiries which were left unanswered for Golaknath's case. This case overruled the choice given on account of Golaknath v State of Punjab case by putting a limitation on the Parliament's entitlement or right to change the Constitution. The Doctrine of Basic Structure was acquainted with guarantee that the amendments don't remove the privileges or rights of the residents which were ensured to them by the Fundamental Rights.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Kesavananda Bharati was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious institution located in Kasaragod district, Kerala. Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned. The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the government could acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt. In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under:

1. Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion

2. Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs

3. Article 14: Right to equality

4. Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property

5. Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property

The Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 even as the petition was under the court’s consideration. The contentions made by the petitioners brought to the fore the validity of various amendments that were brought in by the Parliament to nullify the effects of Golaknath v State of Punjab. The petitioners challenged, in particular, three constitutional amendments - 24th Amendment, 25th Amendment and 29th Amendment and their validity.

Issues before the Court

· Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid or not?

· Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid or not?

· The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.

Contentions by Parties on issues

Petitioner’s contentions

It was fought by the petitioner that the Parliament can't change the Constitution in a manner they need to as they have a restricted capacity to do as such. The Parliament can't practice its capacity to correct the constitution by changing its essential structure as similar was propounded by Justice Mudhokar on account of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan. The petitioner argued for the insurance of his property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.

It was contended by him that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments violated the Fundamental Right which was given under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. Fundamental Rights will be rights accessible to residents of India to guarantee freedom and in the event that any Constitutional correction removes such right, at that point the opportunity which is guaranteed under the Constitution to its residents will be considered to be taken away from them.

Respondent’s contentions

The respondent was the State. The State battled that Supremacy of Parliament is the essential standard of the Indian Legal System thus the Parliament has the ability to change the Constitution limitlessly. State likewise contended that to satisfy its socio-economic obligations ensured to the residents of India under the Preamble, it is significant that the Parliament practices its capacity to correct the constitution with no limitations.

JUDGEMENT

• The landmark judgment was conveyed on 24th April 1973 by a apex court by dominant part of 7:6 wherein the larger part held that any arrangement of the Indian Constitution can be changed by the Parliament all together to satisfy its financial commitments that were ensured to the residents as given in the Preamble, given that such alteration didn't change the Constitution's basic structure. The minority, nonetheless, as they would like to think, were careful about giving the Parliament limitless changing force.

The court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment entirely but the 1st and 2nd part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was found to be intra vires and ultra vires respectively.

It was seen by the court according to the forces of the Parliament to alter the Constitution that it was an inquiry that was left unanswered on account of Golaknath. The response to the inquiry was found in the current case and it was derived by the court that the Parliament has the ability to amend the Constitution to the degree that such amendment does not change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was laid down by the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be followed by the Parliament while amending the provisions of the Constitution.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The basic structure doctrine states that the Parliament has limitless power to amend the Constitution subject to the condition that such amendments should not change the Constitution’s basic structure. The bench did not mention the basic structure of the Constitution and it was left to the interpretation of the courts. This was subsequently laid down in several other judgements by the SC. The court found that the word “amend” which was included in Article 368 does not refer to amendments that can change the basic structure of the constitution. If Parliament wants to amend a particular provision of the Constitution then such amendment would need to go through the test of basic structure.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the Bench wanted to preserve the Indian Constitution by protecting the basic features of the Constitution. The judgment was given in the wake of breaking down the different perspectives and depended on sound thinking. The Bench expected that if the Parliament would be furnished with limitless capacity to alter our Indian Constitution then the force will be abused and would be changed by the Government as per its own will and inclinations. The basic features and the very spirit of the Constitution can be altered by the Government if they have unlimited powers to make amendments. There was a need for a doctrine to preserve the rights of both Parliament and citizens, therefore, the Bench came up with a midway to protect both of their rights through the doctrine of Basic Structure.

The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti provided stability to the Constitution. Though the petitioner lost his case partially, yet the judgment that was given by the Bench, for this situation, worked out to be a friend in need of Indian vote based system and spared the Constitution from losing its soul.