Kesavananda Bharati & Ors. vs. State Of Kerala & Anr. (1973)

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anrs. (1973) case is one of the landmark judgements pronounced by the Supreme Court of India, fundamentally dealing with the scope of the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. In other words, it focused on whether Parliament could amend the fundamental rights that were guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and whether there existed implied limitations on Parliament's amending power. The judgement balanced, on one hand, the need for parliamentary sovereignty, and, on the other hand, the core principle that has been enshrined in the Constitution like democracy, rule of law, and judicial review. While Parliament must have the flexibility to amend the constitution and be able to meet the needs of the changing society, there are certain core principles that must remain inviolable.

Details Of The Case

• Court: The Supreme Court of India

• Appellants: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors.

• Respondents: State of Kerala and Anr.

• Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil)  135 of 1970

• Neutral Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461

• Bench: Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, Justice J.M.Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice A.N.Grover, Justices A.N. Ray, Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice H.R. Khanna, Justice K.K. Mathew, Justice M.H. Beg, Justice S.N. Dwivedi, Justice A.K. Mukherjee and Justice Y.V. Chandrachud 

• Date of decision: 24.04.1973

• Relevant Act: The Indian Constitution; Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969

• Relevant Section(s) of the Act: Article 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 31 & 368 of the Indian Constitution

Facts Of The Case

In this case, Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. The Act placed a restriction on his religious institution, the Edneer Mutt, related to the management of its properties. The petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution with a prayer for protection of his fundamental rights provided by Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire and hold property), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious affairs), and 31 (right to property).

During the pendency of the case, the Parliament passed a number of constitutional amendments, the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. These Amendments were intended to provide the powers to Parliament to alter any aspect of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

Although the core of the issue was whether the act of the land reforms was a constitutional one, the case gradually evolved to the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. Specifically, whether that authority extended to Part III of it, including the fundamental rights.

Arguments Of The Parties

Arguments Of The Petitioners

• Limited amending power: Petitioners pleaded that the Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not absolute. Such a power could not be exercised to alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. It was submitted by the petitioners that it necessarily involved important elements and features of the general constitutional framework and fundamental rights in particular.

• Fundamental rights as part of basic structure: Not providing a list of what constituted the “basic structure,” the petitioners claimed that fundamental rights are part of “basic structure”. This amounted to, ipso facto, a claim that compared with other constitutional provisions, basic structural provisions enjoy greater protection against any amendment.

• Implied limitations: Drawing from Australian and Ceylonese legal history, the petitioners argued for the concept of “implied limitations” on the amending power. The petitioners contended that though the Article itself did not curtail Parliament's amending power, certain limits were inherent in the structure and principles of the Constitution.

• Constituent power and legislative power: The petitioners distinguished between the constituent power of Parliament to alter the Constitution and its ordinary legislative power. They argued that changing the Constitution requires a higher level of scrutiny and that the power to amend cannot be equated with the power of legislation over ordinary things.

Arguments Of The Respondents

• Parliamentary supremacy in amending: The respondents argued for a broad interpretation of Article 368. They argued that Parliament had the right to amend any portion of the constitution including fundamental rights. The Constitution being a dynamic one that was supposed to evolve should, therefore, be amended by Parliament as and when required.

• No express limitation: The respondents claimed that there was no express limitation on the amplitude of the Parliament's amending powers under Article 368. They maintained that unless such express restriction was placed, the implication would be that the framers of the Constitution did not mean to place upon the amending power any sort of restriction. They rather meant to allow liberal latitude in the exercise of such amending power to the Parliament.

• Amendment not abrogation: Respondents urged that amendment was not the same as derogation of a power. Further they urged that though Parliament was authorised to alter or vary certain provisions of the Constitution, it could not completely destroy or nullify its fundamental framework, including fundamental rights.

• Democratic principles: The respondents invoked the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty to support their case. They argued that Parliament, being the elected representatives of the people, should have the power to amend the Constitution to reflect the evolving will of the populace.

Issues Framed By The Court

Here are the key issues framed by the Court:

• Does the Parliament enjoy absolute amending power to the Constitution including the fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution?

• Are there any implied limitations on the amending power of Parliament, especially with regard to the basic structure of the Constitution?

• What is the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments?

Laws/Concepts Involved In The Decision

This case dealt with several concepts that are crucial for our understanding:

Article 368 (Amending power of the Parliament): This is the heart of the case itself, outlining procedure to amend the Constitution. The Court had difficulty with the words involved since it did not have express limitations. The lack of express constraints formed a key argument for the respondents, who favoured broad amending powers for Parliament. Conversely, the petitioners argued for inherent limitations despite this absence.

• Basic structure doctrine: Though the Constitution does not employ express definition, this doctrine emerged as a cornerstone of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. It points out that some of the basic features of the Constitution form  “basic structure” of the Constitution and therefore lie beyond the amending power of Parliament. Of these attributes, the Court did not exhaustively enumerate them, but suggested that such features might include, among others, the fundamental rights, the federal nature of the Constitution, and separation of powers. 

• Implied limitations: This doctrine, invoked by the petitioners, argues that even without explicit textual restrictions, certain limitations are inherent in a constitution's structure, language, and underlying principles. The Australian cases, the Ceylonese cases were given as an example for the same. It assumes a holistic approach to a Constitution, rather than a provision-by-provision approach.

• Judicial review: The authority of the Court to review and potentially invalidate laws, including constitutional amendments, formed another key concept of the judgement. Some of the judges emphasised on the role of the Court to defend the Constitution while others argued for judicial restraint, particularly when dealing with political questions like amendments.

• Interpretation of Constitutional provisions: The case heavily relied on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 368 and 13. The Court debated the use of following interpretive tools:

  • Textualism: This approach gives preference to the literal meaning brought forth by words used in the Constitution. It can be seen in the arguments related to absence of explicit limitation in Article 368.

  • Historical context: Arguments referencing the historical background of constitutional provisions, like those concerning compensation in the context of property rights, highlight this approach.

  • Constitutional purpose and values: The use of broader constitutional values, such as democracy, social justice, and the balance between individual rights and community interests, underscores this approach.

• Difference between Legislative and Constituent power: The petitioners highlighted the difference between Parliament's ordinary law-making power and constituent power to amend the Constitution. They argued that an amendment to the Constitution required a higher degree of scrutiny, distinguished from ordinary legislation. This would mean that certain actions permissible in regular lawmaking might be impermissible when an amendment occurs in the fundamental structure of the state.

Decision Of The Court

This was a landmark judgement in Indian constitutional law. This judgement directly addressed the balance between the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and the potential infringement upon fundamental rights created by such amendments. In contrast to Golak Nath, the Court in Kesavananda Bharati did not have one majority opinion. However, a narrow majority converged upon a set of key findings:

• The power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is not absolute: While upholding the power of amendment as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, the Court rejected the idea that this power was absolute. It held that there were certain intrinsic limitations to this power derived from the structure and essential features of the Constitution itself.

• Concept of the “Basic Structure”: The Court came up with the “basic structure doctrine” which provides that there are certain fundamental features which form the very core of the Constitution which cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments. While it did not provide an exhaustive definition, the decision implied that fundamental rights, federalism, and the separation of powers could be elements of this structure. This essential doctrine holds that the Constitution is not merely a set of rules but a framework with an unalterable essence.

• Judicial review of the Amendments: The court asserted its authority to review constitutional amendments. It struck down the provisions which were violating the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, the rights of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution were fortified so that amendments stay within the confines of its fundamental structure.

• Consequences for Golak Nath case: In effect, the Kesavananda Bharati verdict overruled the Golak Nath judgement which had stated that fundamental rights were entirely beyond the reach of amendment. The Court confirmed the power of the Parliament to amend fundamental rights but within the jurisprudence of the basic structure doctrine.

• Remittal of case: The specific questions of law on the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendment Acts to the Constitution were remitted to the Constitution Bench for further investigation in the light of its judgement.

The judgement, strictly speaking, did not overrule any particular provision of the challenged amendments. The importance of the judgement lies in what it said rather than what it did. The Court vastly affected the course of Indian constitutional law by recognizing inherent limitations upon the amending power of the Parliament and protection of fundamental rights within the basic structure framework, 

The Court did not produce a definitive list of what comprises the “basic structure.” This lack of precise definition has led to ongoing legal debate and interpretation in subsequent cases where the judiciary has been called upon to determine whether specific amendments cross the line drawn in Kesavananda Bharati judgement.

Analysis Of The Judgement

The judgement in Kesavananda Bharati case marked a landmark moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Far from a single majority opinion, it emerged with a complex tapestry of concurrences and dissents that testified to the gravity of the issues involved. Following analysis will unpack the key elements of the judgement:

Confirming The Amending Powers Of The Parliament But Only Within Limits

Article 368 of the Constitution was the very core of the case, which deals with the process of amending the Constitution. The Queen v. Burah, highlighted the principle that a court's role is to interpret the Constitution based on its language, not to expand limitations constructively. For instance, Justice Palekar argues that in the absence of explicit restrictions, the Court should focus on the expressly granted power. Yet, a narrow majority rejected the view that amending power was unrestricted. The decision relied very heavily on the doctrine of implied restraints and drew upon cases from Australia and Ceylon. It was their opinion that the absence of any particular constraint on the amending power did not amount to having an unfettered right to alter the basic structure of the Constitution

“Basic Structure” Doctrine Gains Prominence

The most important outcome of this case is the “basic structure doctrine.” Even though the judgement did not arrive at a fixed definition, it did seek to decisively establish that there are certain features that are so fundamental to the Constitution that they lie beyond the reach of the amending power of the Parliament. For instance, Justice Beg underscores that the Constitution is not merely a collection of rules but embodies a "Sovereign Democratic Republic" implying inherent limitations on alterations to this core identity.

Here are some examples of those basic structures:

(i) Fundamental rights: Although no longer wholly immune from amendment by Parliament (as decided in the Golak Nath judgement), the judgement speaks to their superior position in the constitutional order. Justice Mathew, for example, aligns fundamental rights to the very concept of a “State” under the Constitution and its obligation to uphold Directive Principles.

(ii) Federalism: The distribution of powers between the Union and States is implied as a crucial element. 

(iii) Separation of powers: The independence of the judiciary, particularly its ability to review legislative and executive actions, is repeatedly emphasised. This implies that amendments seeking to subordinate the judiciary or compromise its role as a guardian of the Constitution would likely face judicial resistance.

Judicial Review- A Safeguard For The “Basic Structure”

The decision establishes the fact that the courts can indeed review amendments of the Constitution, although controversy surrounds this in itself because Parliament normally holds the highest authority. Some judges, particularly those who have conflicts of opinion over how far amendments can go, feel that the courts should accord more respect to Parliament since it is composed by the people.

However, the majority of judges put forth the view that the Supreme Court should intervene if any amendment threatens to alter the very fabric of the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud is, however, correct when he points out that the decisions of Parliament are important but also cautions that the strict legal rule making should not confer sanction to the possibility of misusing its powers. While the Court would generally defer to the choices of the Parliament, it will not hesitate to intervene when an amendment strikes at the very soul of the Constitution.

Enduring Questions And A Legacy Of Interpretation

• It is worthwhile to note that though the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, as monumental and momentous as it was, gave definitive answers to all questions that were raised by it; there never was, a “basic structure” list in concrete terms to prevent courts in the future from unending debate and interpretation in future cases. This lack gives hints at the problems future courts would face  in applying these principles to concrete amendments.

The true impact of the judgement lies in its transformation of the Indian constitutional landscape. By recognizing inherent limits on amendment power and implicitly strengthening fundamental rights, it struck a balance between preserving the adaptability of the Constitution and safeguarding its core values. As a still-evolving “basic structure doctrine,” this forms the cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism, highlighting the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring the Constitution's enduring relevance and efficacy.

Conclusion

In this case, the role of the judiciary was highlighted as a guardian of the Constitution so that the power of amendment was not misused to undermine the foundational values of the Constitution. With time, the “basic structure” doctrine has been invoked in prestigious landmark cases across Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It may therefore be said that the judgement upheld the amending power of Parliament but with an important caveat: the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered. This doctrine continues to be a fundamental principle in protecting constitutional integrity in India.