Keshavananda Bharati Case, Background, Judgement, Impact

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) addressed the balance between individual rights and Parliament's constitutional amendment powers, originating from land reform laws in Kerala affecting religious institutions like the Edneer Mutt. Kesavananda Bharati challenged these amendments, arguing they violated his rights. 

The Supreme Court, in a 7:6 verdict, upheld Parliament's power to amend the constitution but introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” stating core principles like judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights cannot be altered. This doctrine has since limited legislative overreach, protecting the Constitution’s integrity while allowing socio-economic reforms within these boundaries.

Kesavananda Bharati Case Background 

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment balancing individual rights with Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It originated from Kerala's 1950s-60s land reforms, aimed at redistributing land from large landowners to the disadvantaged and landless.

• In 1963, the Kerala Land Reforms Act was enacted, imposing restrictions on land ownership and granting the government the authority to acquire surplus land for redistribution. 
• This legislation notably affected various religious institutions, including the Edneer Mutt, overseen by Kesavananda Bharati, which possessed considerable landholdings.
• Subsequent amendments introduced in 1969 and 1971 sought to enhance governmental powers over land ownership while reducing judicial oversight.
• On March 21, 1970, Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging these amendments. 
• He contended that the amendments violated his fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(f) (right to property), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (right to manage religious affairs). 
• This case ultimately culminated in the establishment of the basic structure doctrine which posits that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be amended by legislative action.

Kesavananda Bharati Case Summary

The case was heard by a 13-judge bench, one of the largest in Indian judicial history, over 68 days, from October 31, 1972, to March 23, 1973. The Supreme Court's judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973, with a narrow majority of 7:6. The Court ruled that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. This ruling effectively established what is now known as the basic structure doctrine, which serves as a safeguard against potential legislative overreach.

Arguments of Petitioner

Kesavananda Bharati's legal team, led by senior advocate Nani Palkhivala, presented several key arguments as amendments violated fundamental rights, exceeded Parliament’s amending limits by altering the Constitution's basic structure, and undermined judicial review and property rights.

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The amendments infringed upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Limits on Amending Power: The power to amend should not extend to altering the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
• Unconstitutionality of Amendments: The amendments challenged (24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts) were unconstitutional as they undermined judicial review and separation of powers.
• Right to Property: The Right to Property is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away without due process.

Arguments of Respondent 

The State of Kerala argued that Parliament’s unlimited amending power under Article 368 was essential for socio-economic justice, reforming feudal structures, regulating property rights for public welfare, and advancing social equity.

• Unlimited Amending Power: Parliament possesses unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
• Socio-Economic Justice: The amendments were necessary for achieving socio-economic justice and reforming outdated feudal structures.
• Regulation of Rights: The right to property is not an absolute fundamental right but can be regulated by law for public welfare.
• Legislative Competence: The amendments aimed at promoting social justice and reducing poverty were justified and within legislative competence.

Kesavananda Bharati Case Supreme Court Judgement 

The Kesavananda Bharati case upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution but limited it with the basic structure doctrine and reinforced judicial review. The Supreme Court's judgment was delivered with a 7:6 majority, highlighting key principles.

• Parliament's Amending Power: The Court held that Parliament does have the authority to amend the Constitution but emphasized that this power is not absolute. It cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that certain principles, including the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights, form the Constitution's core framework.
• Judicial Review: The Court reaffirmed its right to review amendments made by Parliament. It stated that any amendment infringing upon the basic structure would be unconstitutional.
• Constitutionality of Amendments: While upholding the validity of the 24th CAA, which clarified Parliament's amending power, it found parts of the 25th CAA unconstitutional for infringing upon judicial review.

Kesavananda Bharati Case Impact on Constitution

The Kesavananda Bharati case had a significant impact by establishing the basic structure doctrine, which limits Parliament's amendment power, reinforces judicial review, and safeguards fundamental rights against unchecked authority.

• Establishment of Basic Structure Doctrine: The case established the basic structure doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework.
  • It includes supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, judicial independence, and fundamental rights.
• Limits on Parliamentary Power: The judgment imposed limits on Parliament's amending power under Article 368, stating that amendments cannot undermine the basic structure, thus curbing attempts to infringe on fundamental rights.
• Reinforcement of Judicial Review: The Supreme Court upheld judicial review as part of the basic structure, declaring amendments that infringe on it unconstitutional, thus reinforcing the judiciary's role in protecting constitutional values.
• Socio-Economic Reforms and Constitutional Amendments: The ruling recognized Parliament's authority to enact socio-economic reforms, provided they do not violate fundamental rights or alter the Constitution's basic structure, allowing for social justice while maintaining integrity.
• Impact on Future Judicial Decisions: The case has served as a precedent for subsequent judgments regarding constitutional amendments and fundamental rights, solidifying the basic structure doctrine's significance in safeguarding democracy.
• Political and Historical Context: Delivered during a politically charged era, the judgment emphasized preventing unchecked power in amending foundational governance aspects, acting as a safeguard against authoritarianism.

Kesavananda Bharati Case FAQs 

Q1. What happened in Kesavananda Bharati case?

Ans. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the basic structure doctrine, ruling that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental framework.

Q2. Which is the 2nd longest case in Supreme Court?

Ans. The second longest case in the Supreme Court of India is the Keshavananda Bharati case itself, which spanned 68 days of hearings.

Q3. Did Kesavananda get his land back?

Ans. No, Kesavananda Bharati did not get his land back; the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which affected his land ownership.

Q4. What is the difference between Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati case?

Ans. The Golaknath case (1967) barred amending fundamental rights, while the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) allowed amendments but upheld the inviolability of the Constitution's basic structure.

Q5. Which writ was filed in Kesavananda Bharati case?

Ans. A writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was filed, seeking enforcement of fundamental rights against amendments affecting them.