Overview
The Kesavananda Bharati case, also referred to as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, is a very consequential ruling in the field of Indian constitutional law.
In 1973, the Supreme Court of India made a decision that established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
This decision placed limits on the capacity of Parliament to make changes to the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970), sometimes referred to as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India that established the fundamental structural theory of the Indian Constitution. The case is alternatively referred to as the Fundamental Rights Case. In a 7-6 ruling, the court affirmed its authority to invalidate constitutional modifications that contravene the essential structure of the constitution.
Justice Hans Raj Khanna argued that the constitution had an inherent framework of fundamental principles and values, which he referred to as the Basic Structure theory. The Court reaffirmed the previous precedent set by Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which stated that constitutional alterations made through Article 368 might be reviewed in terms of fundamental rights, but only if they had the potential to impact the ‘core structure of the Constitution’. Simultaneously, the Court also affirmed the constitutionality of the initial clause of Article 31-C, which suggests that revisions aimed at implementing the Directive Principles, without impacting the ‘Basic Structure,’ will not be subject to judicial review.
The theory serves as the foundation for the authority of the Indian judiciary to examine and invalidate amendments to the Constitution of India passed by the Indian parliament.
The 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court discussed the potential restrictions on the authority of elected officials and the characteristics of an individual’s fundamental rights. The court reached a conclusion with a 7-6 split, ruling that although Parliament possesses extensive powers, it lacks the authority to dismantle or weaken the essential components or fundamental characteristics of the constitution.
At the time this case was determined, the majority bench had an unprecedented concern that elected officials could not be relied upon to act responsibly. The Kesavananda verdict established the precise limits within which Parliament might curtail property rights for the purpose of land reform and the redistribution of extensive landholdings to farmers. This result overturned prior rulings that implied that the right to property could not be constrained. The case was the final outcome of a sequence of legal cases concerning restrictions on the authority to modify the Constitution.
Context
In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati, a spiritual leader of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, contested the land reform regulations implemented by the Kerala government, which had an impact on the mutt’s holdings. Bharati’s case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, marking a significant turning point in the history of Indian law.
In February 1970, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the senior plaintiff and leader of the Hindu monastery Edneer Matha in Edneer, Kasaragod District, Kerala, contested the Kerala government’s efforts to put limitations on the administration of its property through two land reform acts. Nanabhoy Palkhivala, a prominent Indian legal expert, persuaded Swami to submit his appeal under Article 26, which safeguards the freedom to administer religiously owned assets without state intervention. The trial lasted for a total of 68 days, starting on October 31, 1972, and concluding on March 23, 1973. The judgment, which spans 700 pages, was delivered at the end of the proceedings.
Primary concerns
The primary concerns in the Kesavananda Bharati case encompassed:
- Scope of Parliament’s Authority to Modify the Constitution: Does Parliament possess the ability to modify any aspect of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
- Doctrine of Basic Structure: Was there a provision in the Constitution that was immune to modification through parliamentary amendments?
- Debates or discussions presenting reasons or evidence to support a particular point of view.
- Arguments presented by the petitioners: Bharati’s legal team contended that the authority of Parliament to modify the Constitution was not unrestricted and ought to be restrained by the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
- Arguments presented by the respondents: The administration argued that Parliament possessed the authority to modify the Constitution, which encompassed fundamental rights.
Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
On April 24, 1973, a panel of 13 judges issued a significant and influential decision. The prevailing viewpoint, expressed through a 7-6 division, concluded that although Parliament possessed extensive authority to modify the Constitution, it was not empowered to modify the fundamental framework of the Constitution. This concept stipulated that Parliament was prohibited from amending certain fundamental components of the Constitution, including democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.
Consequences of the Decision
The Kesavananda Bharati verdict has significant ramifications for Indian constitutional law:
- The limitation on Parliamentary power restricted the ability of Parliament to enact extensive changes to the constitution.
- The protection of fundamental rights guaranteed that essential rights and crucial constitutional concepts were maintained from possible excessive legislation.
- Judicial review strengthened the judiciary’s authority to examine and potentially invalidate constitutional revisions that infringed upon the fundamental framework.
Following events or occurrences that happened afterwards.
The fundamental principle of the basic structural doctrine, which was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, has been consistently supported and expanded upon in various subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court. Notable cases that have contributed to the development of this theory include the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case and the Minerva Mills case. These cases have further strengthened the principle of the basic structural theory, affirming its inviolability.
In conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case continues to be a fundamental pillar of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court safeguarded the fundamental principles of the Constitution from being weakened by temporary parliamentary majorities through the establishment of the basic structure doctrine. This ruling continues to act as a strong defense safeguarding the fundamental values of India’s democracy.