Kesvananda Bharati v State of

Kerala, (1973)
Introduction
Kesvananda 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 judgment was of 700 pages
which included a solution for both Parliament’s right to amend laws and citizen’s right to
protect their Fundamental Rights. 

The Bench came up with Doctrine of Basic Structure in order to protect the interests of both
citizens of India and the Parliament. The Bench through this solution solved the questions
which were left unanswered in Golaknath’s case. This case overruled the decision given in
the case of Golaknath v State of Punjab case.

While reaching at the end of arguments in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the legendary
Indian jurist, and one of the craftsmen whose names deserve to be mentioned for outstanding
contribution, Senior Advocate Mr. Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala representing the petitioner.

Since the enforcement of the Indian Constitution in the year 1950, the Supreme Court has
come across various ups and downs. Though initially, it has played the role of the
conservative court, in due course of time, it has also set many instances of playing the vital
role in dispensing justice through judicial activism delivering various verdicts which always
play the vital role in strengthening the base Constitutional democracy in India.

We know that the Supreme Court is the supreme protector of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ of
citizens. It is duty-bound to safeguard the ‘Fundamental Rights’ of the citizens. On the other
hand, it has also the duty to ensure the Constitutional validity of the laws, passed by the
legislature exercising the power of ‘Judicial Review’ under Article 13 of the Constitution of
India. Supreme Court has the power to invalidate any law which violates any part of the
Constitution. Likewise, if the Government makes any law that takes away any or all of
the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part- III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is
duty-bound to make the law unconstitutional upholding the supremacy of the Fundamental
Rights of citizens.

Identification of Parties

Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati & Others

Respondent: State of Kerala 

Bench: S.M. Sikri, K.S. Hegde, A.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan
Reddy, H.R. Khanna, A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, & Y.V.
Chandrachud.

Summary of Facts

Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt which is a religious sect in Kasaragod
district of Kerala. Keshvananda Bharti had certain pieces of land in the sect which were
owned by him in his name. The state government of Kerala introduced the Land Reforms
Amendment Act, 1969. According to the act, the government was entitled to acquire some
of the sect’s land of which Keshvananda Bharti was the chief. 

On 21st March 1970, Keshvananda Bharti moved to Supreme Court under Art 32 of the
Indian Constitution for enforcement of his rights which guaranteed under Article 25 (Right to
practice and propagate religion), Article 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), Article 14
(Right to equality), Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), Article 31 (Compulsory
Acquisition of Property). After the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the
Parliament passed a series of Amendments in order to overrule the judgment of the Golaknath
case. In 1971, the 24th Amendment was passed, In 1972, 25th and 29th Amendment were
passed subsequently. The following amendments were made after Golaknath’s case which
was challenged in the present case:
Meanwhile, the Kerala Government again passed another Kerala Land Reforms
(Amendment) Act, 1971, when the petition was still pending in the Supreme Court. Both the
Kerala Land Reforms Legislations were challenged in Supreme Court.

Explain three amendment-

The background of the Kesavananda Bharati case was not made in one night.
There were series of preceding cases that were involved to cement the background
of the case. In all of these cases, the same question was being raised again and
again that whether the Fundamental Rights are amenable or not within the purview
of Article 368 of the Constitution. In answer to this question, the Supreme Court
gave several rulings and at last came to the final decision in Kesavananda Bharati
Case. These cases were —

2. Sajjan Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845):

3. C. Golaknath & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anrs. (1967 AIR 1643):

Issues before the Court

 Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid

 Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid

 To what extent Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.
 Can Parliament Amend the FR

Contentions by Parties on issues

Petitioner’s contentions

It was contended by the petitioner that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way
they want to as they have a limited power to do so. The Parliament cannot exercise its power
to amend the constitution by changing its basic structure as the same was propounded by
Justice Mudhokar in the case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan. The petitioner pleaded for
the protection of his property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. 

It was argued by him that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments violated the
Fundamental Right which was provided under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.
Fundamental Rights are rights available to citizens of India to ensure freedom and if any
Constitutional amendment takes away such right then the freedom which is ensured under the
Constitution to its citizens will be deemed to be taken away from them.

Respondent’s contentions

The respondent was the State. The State contended that Supremacy of Parliament is the basic
principle of the Indian Legal System and so the Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution unlimitedly.

State also contended that in order to fulfill its socio-economic obligations which have been
guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Preamble, it is important that the Parliament
exercises its power to amend the constitution without any limitations.

Judgment

It was held by the apex court by a majority of 7:6 that Parliament can amend any provision of
the Constitution to fulfill its socio-economic obligations guaranteed to the citizens under the
Preamble subject to the condition that such amendment won’t change the basic structure of
the Indian Constitution.

The majority decision was delivered by S.M. Sikri CJI, K.S. Hegde, B.K. Mukherjea, J.M.
Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy JJ. & Khanna J. Whereas, the minority opinions
were written by A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V.
Chandrachudjj. The minority bench wrote different opinions but was still reluctant to give
unfettered authority to the Parliament. The landmark case was decided on 24th April 1973.

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 observed by the court in relation to the powers of the Parliament to amend the
Constitution that it was a question that was left unanswered in the case of Golaknath.

The answer to the question was found in the present case and it was deduced by the court that
the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution to the extent 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.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure

According to the doctrine, the Parliament has an unlimited power to amend the Constitution
subject to the sole condition that such amendments must not change the basic structure of the
Constitution. The Parliament should not in any manner interfere with the basic features of the
Constitution without which our Constitution will be left spiritless and lose its very essence.
The basic structure of the Constitution was not mentioned by the bench and was left to the
interpretation of the courts. The Courts need to see and interpret if a particular amendment
violates the basic structure of our Indian Constitution or not. 

The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti provided stability to the Constitution. Though the
petitioner lost his case partially, yet the judgment that was given by the Bench, in this case,
worked out to be a savior of Indian democracy and saved the Constitution from losing its
spirit.