Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala

 

Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala

Introduction

The Indian polity and legal system have undergone significant change as a result of numerous Supreme Court decisions. However, in India's judicial history, this case has been regarded as an epic.  One of the most significant landmark cases in India's constitutional and legal history is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. This case definitively answered the question of whether the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is absolute and unrestricted. The court's decision in the Keshavananda Bharati case was highly unusual and insightful.

 

The "Basic Structure Doctrine" of the Indian Constitution was established by the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, which was based on the idea that every constitution has some fundamental principles that should be upheld as sacred and untouchable and cannot be altered or destroyed. To protect the rights of the Indian people and the Parliament, the Bench established the Basic Structure Doctrine. With this strategic approach, the Bench addressed the issues that remained unresolved in Golaknath's case. The Golaknath v. State of Punjab decision, which restricted Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution, was overturned in this case. The Basic Structure Doctrine was created to make sure that people's fundamental rights would not be violated by amendments.

 

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case is significant for a number of reasons, one of which is that it was heard by the 13-judge constitution bench, the largest so far, and that judgment was given in a 7:6 ratio along with 11 separate judgements. A total of 93 distinguished legal luminaries, including the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court S.M. Sikri and attorneys like N.A. Palkhiwala contributed their viewpoints to the judgement, which is 703 pages long. The 68-day hearing resulted in the preservation of democracy's ideal. And because of all these features, it comes off as grand and ostentatious.

 

Background

The history of this case was not created in a matter of days, weeks, or even months, but rather as a result of ongoing conflicts between the parliament and the judiciary that had persisted throughout the system for several years. The Supreme Court's decision in the Golaknath Case and a few other subsequent cases, in which it attempted to uphold the sanctity of the Fundamental Rights and render them unamendable, served as the catalyst for the entire situation.

 

The Supreme Court's actions, while progressive and intended to uphold the Constitution, infuriated the government, which then passed four amendments that curtailed the Supreme Court's judicial review authority while giving the Parliament complete power to amend the Constitution and address the issue of fundamental rights.

We need to be aware of two Constitutional Articles that are crucial to this topic before proceeding and going into detail about the issues involved:

1.    ARTICLE 13– According to Article 13, all laws that violate or are incompatible with citizens' fundamental rights are void to that extent.

2.    ARTICLE 368– Article 368 discusses the Indian parliament's amendment process and authority.

So, A number of earlier instances supported the case's history. The question of whether or not the fundamental rights protected by Article 368 of the Constitution have been brought up in each of these instances. In response to this query, the Supreme Court gave a number of decisions before making its final judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case. These were the cases:

 

Shri Sankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India & State of Bihar 1951 SC 458

In this instance, it was argued that the 1951 First Constitutional Amendment Act infringed upon and thus violated the "Fundamental Rights" enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that "the legislature's power to amend 'fundamental rights' incorporated into Part III of the Constitution under article 368 includes the power to amend any provision of the Constitution." The Supreme Court, in this case, came to the conclusion that Part III did not have a special status in relation to the other parts of the Constitution and that its provisions could be changed by the legislature in accordance with Article 368 just like those in any other regular part of the Constitution.

 

Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan 1965 AIR 845

While the majority of opinions, in this case, supported Sankari Prasad's correctness, Judges J.R. Mudholkar and M. Hidayatullah disagreed and thought that the Indian Constitution had some fundamental characteristics that shouldn't be covered by Article 368. The modifying authority outlined in Article 368 must continue to safeguard the fundamental characteristics, which are sacred and impregnable, from arbitrary state intrusions. So, We see that the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which was ultimately upheld in the Kesavananda Bharati Case, was rooted in this case.

 

I.C. Golaknath and Ors. V. State of Punjab and Ors. 1967 AIR 1643

The Supreme Court's position in the Sajjan Singh and Sankari Prasad cases was modified by this ruling. It was decided that the provisions of Article 368 do not apply to the fundamental human rights protected by Part III of the Constitution and cannot be violated. The Court has deemed it ultra vires, or beyond powers, for the legislature to alter any fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

 

Case Fact

In the midst of this conflict, a petition in Supreme Court was filed opposing the Kerala Government's Land Reforms Act. One Swami Kesavananda Bharati Sripad, the chief of a religious sect in Kerala, filed this petition. This sect had a large land holding. To order to achieve social and economic goals, the State Government acquired some of the lands under the authority of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, of 1969. On March 21, 1970, the petitioner filed a case (under Section 32 of the Constitution) in the Supreme Court for enforcing the rights, guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 31 of the Indian constitution. These Articles give the following fundamental rights to each and every citizen.

1.    Article 14: Right to equality and equal protection

2.    Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property

3.    Article 25:Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

4.    Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

5.    Article 31: Right of private ownership and the right to enjoy and dispose of property

 

While the court was considering the petition, the state of Kerala passed a different law known as the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. The arguments put forth by the petitioners highlighted the legitimacy of several amendments that the Parliament introduced to overturn the outcomes of Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The validity of three constitutional amendments—the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments—was specifically contested by the petitioners.

 

24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

This amendment was passed in order to reverse the Golaknath ruling by the Supreme Court. Articles 13 and 368 of the constitution were modified by the amendment.  This article reinstated the parliamentary authority to amend any provision of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Articles 13(4) and 368(3)also have been added. "Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368," Article 13(4) states. “Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made pursuant to this Article”, according to Article 368(3).  Moreover, the president's assent to any such bill is now mandated by statute.

 

25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971

In the Bank Nationalization case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation in the event that any property is acquired, and that the aforementioned compensation must be equal to the value of the acquired property. This Court also stated that the law must fulfil the requirements of Article 19(1)(f) in order to acquire or require the property for public purposes. This Supreme Court's decision placed restrictions on the government, so in order to overcome this, the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was brought by parliament.

 

29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972

The amendment gives certain DPSP, specifically Articles 39(B) and (C), precedence over Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Fundamental Rights, in the name of economic democracy and social welfare. It resulted in the addition of a new Article 31(C). This new amendment restricted the right to property and allowed the government to acquire private property for public use in exchange for payment of compensation that would be decided by the Parliament rather than the courts. Additionally, the court's ability to conduct a judicial review of the matter is diminished by the amendment.

 

Issues before the Supreme Court

In the Kesavananda Bharati case, It was questioned Whether the 24 and 25 Constitutional (Amendment) Acts are constitutionally valid. To what extent Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution?  Was Parliament's ability to change the Constitution unrestricted? In other words, could Parliament change, amend, or even repeal any part of the Constitution to the point where all fundamental rights were eliminated?

 

Contentions of the Parties

In Keshwanand Bharti v. the State of Kerala, the petitioner claimed that because Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution is constrained, it cannot act arbitrarily or without restraint.   The petitioner cited Justice Mudholkar's remark in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) that Parliament cannot exercise its right to amend the constitution by changing its fundamental design.  According to Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner requested protection and rights over his property and argued that Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution's fundamental right was violated by the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments.

 

While, The State of Kerala argued that the parliament has unrestricted, unlimited, and absolute power to amend the Constitution. According to the State, the supremacy of the Parliament is the fundamental tenet of the Indian legal system, and as such, it has unrestricted power to amend the Constitution. The respondents emphasised that the Parliament's unrestricted power to amend the Constitution must be upheld if it is to fulfil its socio-economic obligations.

 

Judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati Case

The 13 judges bench consists of CJI S.M.Sikri, J.M.Shelat, K.S Hegade, A.N.Grover, A.N.Ray, P.Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G.Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K.Matthew, M.H.Beg, S.N.Dwivedi, A.K.Mukherjea and Y.V.Chandrachud. By a razor-thin margin of 7:6, the Supreme Court delivered the historic ruling on April 24, 1973, holding that as long as the amendment does not violate the Constitution's basic structure, Parliament has the right to amend any constitutional provision in order to fulfil the socioeconomic obligations that were guaranteed to citizens in the Preamble. CJI Sikri and Justice Hegde and Mukherjea, Shelat and Grover, Jaganmohan Reddy and Khanna were on the majority side while Justice Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi and Chandrachud showed their dissent for judgement. They were hesitant to give Parliament full and unrestricted power to amend the Constitution.

 

Although the entire 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 was upheld, the apex court deemed the first part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 to be intra vires and the second part to be ultra vires. The court determined that neither the Parliament nor the Supreme Court has the power to undermine the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Thus, the Kesavananda case led to the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

 

Basic Structure Doctrine

The basic structure doctrine says that parliament has absolute power to amend the Constitution as long as such amendments do not change the Constitution’s basic structure without which the constitution would be spiritless. Supremacy of the constitution, Sovereignty, integrity, Democratic, Secularity, Parliamentary form of government, federal structure, separation of power etc is some of the characteristics of the Indian constitution that falls under the basic structure. However, the bench did not specifically mention the Constitution's basic structure, leaving it up to the court's interpretation in making decisions from time to time. The above-mentioned features were outlined by the supreme court in a number of other subsequent judgments. The court argued that the term "amend" used in Article 368 can not change fundamental features of the Constitution. The "basic structure test" must be applied to any amendment that the Parliament wishes to make regarding any constitutional provision.

 

Conclusion

The 68-day hearing of the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, which was previously mentioned, started on October 31, 1972, and ended on March 23, 1973. The amount of effort and study that went into this case's preparation was astounding. There had been literally hundreds of cases cited, and the then-attorney general had created a comparison chart that examined the provisions of 71 different countries' constitutions. Therefore, The decision was made after a thorough examination of numerous factors and was supported by sound reasoning. According to the bench, if the Parliament were given unrestricted amending authority, there was a chance that power would be abused and that governments would alter it in accordance with their own preferences and whims. The Indian Constitution's fundamental elements, as well as its very essence and spirit, could be changed if the government had such unrestricted power. A doctrine that could safeguard the rights of both the Indian Parliament and Indian citizens was required; hence the Basic Structure Doctrine came into existence. Our Constitution gained stability as a result of this important landmark judgement. Even though the petitioner suffered a partial loss, in this case, the Supreme Court's decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case saved Indian democracy and kept the Constitution's spirit intact. And finally, the long-running debate and struggle for power between the parliament and the judiciary were resolved. As a result, the public's confidence in the judiciary has been re-established.