Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

 

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973)

 

Case Details

Court- Supreme Court

Equivalent citation- AIR 1973 SC 1461.

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.

Date- 31 Oct 1972 – 24 Apr 1973

Case Type- Civil Writ Petition

Parties

Petitioner: KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru& Ors.

Respondent: State of Kerala

Case Analysis

KeshvanandaBharati is a historic case, and the Supreme Court's decision articulated the Constitution's essential structure theory. The bench's conclusion in the matter of KeshavanandaBharati was quite unusual and insightful. The 700-page verdict presented a remedy for both Parliament's power to alter legislation and citizens' right to safeguard their Fundamental Rights.

The Basic Structure Doctrine was developed by the Bench in order to defend the interests of both Indian citizens and the Parliament. The Bench answered the questions that remained unanswered in Golaknath's case with this solution. This lawsuit overturned the result in Golaknath v State of Punjab, limiting Parliament's ability to modify the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine was established to ensure that modifications do not deprive citizens of their rights as provided by the Fundamental Rights.

Brief Facts

KeshvanandaBharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in Kerala's Kasaragod district. In the sect, Keshvananda Bharti had a few plots of land that he held in his own. Kerala's state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. The government had the right under the statute to take away portion of the sect's territory, of which Keshvananda Bharti was the head.

On March 21, 1970, Keshvananda Bharti filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Section 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking enforcement of his rights guaranteed by Articles 25 (Right to practise and propagate religion), 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), 14 (Right to equality), 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), and 31 (Right to manage religious affairs) (Compulsory Acquisition of Property). The Kerala Government passed another statute, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, while the petition was still being considered by the court. Following the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, Parliament enacted a series of amendments to overturn the Golaknath decision. The 24th Amendment was ratified in 1971. The 25th and 29th Amendments were ratified in 1972.

24th Amendment

Every amendment made under Article 368 would be treated as an exception under Article 13 in the instance of Golaknath, according to the judgement. To counteract this consequence, the Parliament added clause 4 to Article 13 of the Constitution, making it impossible for any amendment to have an effect under Article 13.

To avoid any misunderstanding, the Parliament inserted clause 3 to Article 368, which states: "Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any alteration made under this article."

In the case of Golaknath, the majority decided that Article 368 previously only had a provision stating the mechanism for amendment and not the power, therefore Article 368 was revised and the phrase power was added to the Marginal Note in order to include the word power in the Article.

Through a change to Article 368, the Parliament attempted to distinguish between the method for amending a law and the procedure for amending a regular law (2). Previously, the President had the right to refuse or withhold a law for amendment. After the 24th Amendment, the President no longer had the option of refusing or delaying a law. The Indian Parliament did this to insulate the amendment from the exception set forth in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

25th Amendment

The Parliament intended to make it clear that they are not obligated to adequately compensate landlords in the event that their property is acquired by the State Government, therefore the word "compensation" was replaced with the word "amount" in Article 31(2) of the Constitution.

Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) were no longer linked.

A new provision was inserted to Article 31(c) of the Constitution in order to remove all impediments and to achieve the goals set out in Articles 39(b) and 39(c), and it was agreed that Articles 14, 19, and 31 would not be applied to any statute. The court was barred from intervening in any statute passed by Parliament in order for Article 39(b) and 39(c) to take effect.

29th Amendment

In 1972, the 29th Amendment was ratified. The Kerala Land Reforms Act was included to the 9th Schedule. It meant that any cases involving the Kerala Land Reforms Act would be tried outside of the courts. All of the adjustments made by the Central Government safeguarded the amendments made by the State Government in some way from being tried in a court of law. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, as well as the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, were challenged in court.

Issues before the Court

Is the 24th Amendment to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1971 constitutionally valid?

Is the 25th Amendment to the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1972 constitutionally valid?

The extent to which Parliament can use its constitutional amendment powers.

Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled by a 7:6 majority that Parliament can amend any section of the Constitution to meet its socio-economic obligations to citizens promised by the Preamble, as long as the modification does not change the core framework of the Indian Constitution.

S.M. Sikri, CJI, K.S. Hegde, B.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy JJ., and Khanna J. delivered the majority decision. A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachudjj wrote the minority opinions. Even though the minority bench issued differing opinions, it was nonetheless hesitant to give Parliament unrestricted power. On April 24, 1973, a historic case was decided.

The 24th Constitutional Amendment was affirmed in its entirety, however the first and second parts of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act were determined to be intra vires and extra vires, respectively. The court noted that the question of Parliament's power to change the Constitution was left unaddressed in the case of Golaknath.

The solution to the question was discovered in the current case, and the court determined that the Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution to the degree that such amendments do not alter the Indian Constitution's core framework. The court ruled that when modifying the Constitution, Parliament must adhere to the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Conclusion

This ruling by a 13-judge panel is a typical illustration of judicial policy. The current case not only overturned the court's previous incorrect rulings in the Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath cases, but it also resolved the inherent conflict and ambiguity in constitutional machinery regarding the possibility of infringing on citizens' fundamental rights and restricting parliament's power to amend the constitution's basic structure.

The majority's decision to maintain the constitution's core elements was founded on rational and solid thinking, as was the choice to propound the Doctrine of Basic Structure to keep Parliament's power and any malignant goals in check. To summarise, this decision restored citizens' faith in the judiciary as well as democracy in this country.