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

 

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors.

v.

State of Kerala & Anr.

(Writ petition (civil) No. 135 of 1970)

D.O.J: 24–4-1973

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461

 

 

Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati & Ors.

Respondent: State of Kerala& Anr.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENTED BY: UTSAV RAJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brief Facts:

·       On February 1970 Swami Kesavananda Bharati, senior plaintiff and head of the Hindu monastery Edneer Matha in Edneer, Kasaragod District, Kerala, challenged the Kerala government's attempts, under two land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.

·       A noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, convinced Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.

·       The hearings consumed five months, and the outcome profoundly affected India's democratic processes.

·       The case had been heard for 68 days, the arguments commencing on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973, and its judgement consists of 700 pages.

 

Issues:

·       Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is constitutionally valid or not?

·       Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is constitutionally valid or not?

·       The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.

Judgment (Majority):

·       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.

Ratio Decidendi:

·       If one goes through the opinions of Hegde, Ray, Jaganmohan Reddy, Palekar, Khanna, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, Mukherjea and Chandrachud, JJ., one cannot fail to realize that they base their decision on the proposition that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include amendments to the Constitution.

·       When an amendment is contemplated, if there should be a clear avoidance of a constitutional vacuum and if what is left after the amendment should be an organic instrument with power to make, interpret and implement laws, the existence of some framework has to be necessarily envisaged.

·       If the Constitution is abrogated and the country is to be governed as nearly as possible under, say, the abrogated Constitution, on the strength of a martial law orders, the three branches of Government are not obliterated but it is doubtful whether this would be considered a permissible amendment of the Constitution.

Judgment (Minority):

·       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 though writing separate opinions didn’t conceded to the fact that there are some provisions which are fundamental.

·       They were reluctant to grant complete and unfettered authority to Parliament with respect to power of amendment.

List of Cases Discussed:

·       Golaknath v. State of Punjab,1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762.

·       Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933.

·       Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 455.

Opinions:

·       The decision of the Kesavananda Bharati case was a thought-provoking judgment.

·       The bench in this decision after putting a lot of thought into it had came up with a very unique.

·       The decision running into more than 700 pages has devised a solution applying which neither Parliament’s obligations are hindered & nor is there any possibility of violation of citizens’ Fundamental Right. 

·       Kesavananda is a classic example of judicial policy where due to inherent conflict and ambiguity the Constitutional Machinery was failing.

·       This inherent conflict and ambiguity was resolved when the majority bench came up with Doctrine of Basic Structure. 

·       This 13 judge bench decision corrected wrong precedents (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golaknath) made in the past and presented the Indian Democracy where all the institutions borne through Constitution can perform their respective obligations harmoniously.

·       After the application of this decision Judiciary, as given by the Constitution, has become final arbiter to check violation of constitutional provisions.

·       Since Kesavananda Bharati case overruled Golaknath case it cleared the Parliament’s way to fulfill their obligations to create a welfare state and an egalitarian society.

·       Along with this it has also put a cap of restriction on the Parliament to keep its autocracy in check and to ascertain that there is no further violation of Fundamental rights.

Conclusion:

·       The Supreme Court reading implied limitation on Parliament’s amending power was a very bold & brave move.

·       The Constitution of India deriving strength from national consensus and enacted in the name of “People of India” cannot be amended by a mere 2/3^rd majority when in reality 2/3^rd majority does not represent the entire populous of nation, further it should be also kept in mind that not entire population cast their respective votes in General Election.

·       The procedure of Amendment requires the bill to pass from both the houses and Rajya Sabha does not represent people of India i.e. it is not a popular house therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that an Amendment passed by the houses actually represent “People of India”.