Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461] is one of the most significant cases in the history of Indian constitutional law. Decided on 24 April 1973 by the Supreme Court of India, this case established the Basic Structure doctrine—a principle which holds that although Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure or the essential features of the Constitution. 

This case has had a long-lasting impact on the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, ensuring that the fundamental rights of citizens remain protected against arbitrary amendments.

The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case and has been widely cited as a safeguard for the constitutional identity of India. It was decided by a 13-judge Constitution Bench in a closely contested 7–6 split, highlighting the deep divisions on the issue of the scope of Parliament’s amending power.

Historical and Legal Background

In the early years after independence, the Indian judiciary was tasked with interpreting the Constitution in the context of a rapidly changing political and social landscape. Prior to Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, several landmark cases had attempted to delineate the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court held that amendments were not subject to judicial review, reinforcing the idea that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution.
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): While this case upheld the unlimited amending power, dissenting opinions by judges like Justice Mudholkar began to hint at inherent limitations.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): This decision declared that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights, a ruling that was later challenged and ultimately overruled by Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.

At a time when the political landscape was marked by demands for land reforms and changing economic policies, these decisions had led to uncertainty about the extent to which the elected representatives could alter constitutional provisions. The need to safeguard the basic framework of the Constitution became more urgent than ever.

Facts of Kesavananda Bharati Case

The case arose from a dispute involving the management of religious property. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Matha in Kasaragod District, Kerala, found himself in conflict with the state government. 

The Kerala government, under two land reform acts, sought to impose restrictions on the management of the properties of religious institutions. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a revered religious leader, challenged these reforms on the grounds that they violated his fundamental rights.

Key facts include:

• Land and Religious Property: Kesavananda Bharati was the chief of the Edneer Matha and the owner of land associated with the religious institution. The land reforms introduced by the Kerala government affected the management and ownership of this property.
• Legal Action: The case was filed as a writ petition under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The petition also invoked Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19(1)(f) (right to acquire property), and 31 (compulsory acquisition of property).
• Duration of Proceedings: The arguments in the case were heard over 68 days, starting on 31 October 1972 and ending on 23 March 1973. The final judgement was an extensive document, spanning nearly 700 pages.
• Involvement of Prominent Lawyers: The case saw the participation of noted jurists like Nanabhoy Palkhivala, who played a key role in presenting the arguments against the government.

The conflict ultimately escalated into a constitutional crisis, prompting the Supreme Court to consider not only the specifics of the land reform laws but also the broader question of the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court

The Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case raised several critical questions regarding the nature and limits of constitutional amendments. The main issues considered by the Court were:

1. Amendment of Fundamental Rights: Can Parliament, under Article 368, amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution?
2. Scope of Parliamentary Power: Does the power to amend include the power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution? In other words, is there an inherent limitation on the power of amendment such that the fundamental features or the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution remain inviolate?
3. Validity of Specific Amendments: The case also examined the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which were aimed at protecting the government’s ability to make further amendments without being constrained by previous judicial decisions.

These issues required the Court to balance the democratic mandate of the legislature with the need to protect the core principles that underpin the Indian Constitution.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute. Key points included:

• Limitation on Amending Power: The petitioner contended that while Parliament is empowered to amend the Constitution, this power does not extend to altering the basic structure. The basic structure includes the fundamental rights and the core values enshrined in the Constitution, which must be preserved at all costs.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner maintained that the fundamental rights are a guarantee for the citizens and form an integral part of the constitutional framework. Therefore, any amendment that sought to dilute or destroy these rights would be unconstitutional.
• Judicial Precedents: Referencing earlier cases such as Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the petitioner argued that the dissenting opinions in those cases hinted at the need for a limitation on the power of amendment.
• Constitutional Intent: The petitioner emphasised that the Constitution was drafted to safeguard the interests of the citizens and to prevent any form of tyranny by the government. Allowing unlimited amendment power would, in his view, lead to the erosion of the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, representing the state of Kerala, argued in favour of a broader interpretation of Parliament’s amending power. Their key arguments were:

• Unlimited Amending Power: The respondent asserted that Parliament, as the elected representative body, has complete authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. This view was grounded in the interpretation of Article 368, which was seen as granting an unfettered power to the legislature.
• Legislative Supremacy: They contended that since Parliament is democratically elected, it is best placed to determine the needs of the nation and can therefore modify constitutional provisions as required. The respondent argued that any restrictions on this power would undermine the democratic process.
• No Implied Limitations: According to the respondent, the Constitution does not explicitly mention any limits on the amending power. Therefore, imposing a doctrine like the basic structure would be an unwarranted judicial imposition on a democratically mandated process.
• Need for Flexibility: The respondent highlighted that the ability to amend the Constitution is essential for adapting to changing social, economic, and political circumstances. They argued that restrictions on the amending power would make it difficult for the Constitution to evolve over time.

Judicial Reasoning and Majority Opinion in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala

In a split decision of 7–6, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and supported by judges such as Hegde, Grover, Shelat, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna, set forth the following key reasoning:

Basic Structure Doctrine

The majority held that while Parliament does have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure. This doctrine means that certain fundamental principles—such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and the protection of fundamental rights—are beyond the reach of constitutional amendments.

Interpretation of ‘Amendment’ under Article 368

The Court interpreted the term ‘amendment’ in Article 368 to mean any addition or change in the provisions of the Constitution, provided that such amendments do not affect the core objectives embodied in the Preamble and the Directive Principles. In essence, Parliament may modify the Constitution so long as the basic framework remains intact.

Limitation on Legislative Power

The majority noted that unlimited power to amend could lead to the possibility of arbitrary changes that might undermine the very identity of the Constitution. The judgement argued that the Constitution is not merely a legal document but a living instrument that reflects the fundamental values and ideals of the nation. To protect these ideals, there must be an inherent limitation on the power to amend.

Balanced Approach

While the majority affirmed that Parliament’s power to amend is wide, it is not absolute. This balanced approach seeks to reconcile the need for constitutional flexibility with the imperative of safeguarding the fundamental structure that defines Indian democracy.

The dissenting opinions, presented by Justices Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, and Chandrachud, argued in favour of a more expansive view of the amending power. However, the majority’s reasoning in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ultimately prevailed, setting a precedent that has influenced Indian constitutional law ever since.

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala Judgement and Its Aftermath

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala had far-reaching consequences. The judgement upheld the constitutionality of certain amendments (notably the 24th Amendment) while striking down parts of the 25th Amendment that were seen to infringe upon the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key points regarding the outcome include:

Validation and Rejection of Amendments

The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, which was intended to protect Parliament’s amending power. However, it declared that any amendment that attempted to change the basic structure would be unconstitutional. In the case of the 25th Amendment, the Court found that while some parts could be accepted as a reasonable abridgement of rights in the public interest, other parts that went too far in altering fundamental rights were invalid.

Judicial Review

The decision reinforced the power of judicial review, enabling the Supreme Court to strike down any constitutional amendment that violated the basic structure. This established a check on the legislative power, ensuring that the Constitution’s core values remain inviolable.

Political and Legal Impact

The ruling was met with significant political backlash, especially from the government of Indira Gandhi, which was determined to assert its authority over constitutional matters. The dissenting judges’ promotion and subsequent political manoeuvres reflected the deep controversy the decision engendered. Despite these challenges, the Basic Structure doctrine has remained a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala remains a landmark decision that continues to shape the interpretation of the Indian Constitution. Its establishment of the Basic Structure doctrine has provided a critical check on the amending power of Parliament, ensuring that the fundamental features of the Constitution are preserved for future generations.

The case not only clarified the limits of legislative power but also underscored the importance of judicial review in protecting the constitutional framework. By maintaining that any amendment must respect the core values and basic structure of the Constitution, the decision reinforces the idea that the Indian Constitution is more than a mere legal document—it is a living embodiment of the nation’s ideals, values, and aspirations.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala has had a transformative effect on Indian constitutional law. It has safeguarded the rights of citizens, upheld the democratic structure of government, and provided a bulwark against the potential tyranny of unchecked legislative power. The decision continues to be a touchstone in constitutional debates and remains as relevant today as it was over four decades ago.

 Researchers: Anubhuti Jain and Upasana Borah

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal