KESHAVANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERALA: A CASE COMMENTARY

BY ARKAPRIYA GHOSH FROM JOGESH CHANDRA CHAUDHURI LAW COLLEGE, CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE:

In the annals of Indian constitutional law, the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala stands as a landmark, marking a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the Constitution. This historic legal battle unfolded in the Supreme Court of India, where the petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, a senior seer of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the state’s authority to impose restrictions on the management of its properties.

The case commenced on October 31, 1972, and spanned several months, with the final verdict delivered on April 24, 1973. Filed in the Supreme Court of India, the case gained prominence not merely for its immediate concerns but for the profound constitutional implications it would unravel.

At its core, Kesavananda Bharati’s challenge was not confined to the specific dispute over property management; rather, it transcended into a constitutional debate of far-reaching consequences. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Article 13(2) and its interplay with the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The petitioner contended that while the Parliament held the authority to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure” or essential features.

REASONS FOR ORIGIN:

The genesis of the Kesavananda Bharati case can be traced to the State of Kerala’s attempts to assert control over the administration and management of certain properties belonging to religious institutions, including the Edneer Mutt where Kesavananda Bharati served as the senior seer. This move by the state government to regulate the affairs of religious institutions sparked the legal battle.

Kesavananda Bharati, deeply concerned about the potential infringement on the autonomy and religious practices of the Edneer Mutt, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which sought to place restrictions on the management of these properties. The case was not merely a contest over property rights but evolved into a constitutional challenge with profound implications.

The petitioner, through his legal counsel, argued that the state’s intervention violated the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly those related to religious freedom. However, as the case progressed, it transcended its immediate context, evolving into a broader examination of the extent of parliamentary power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

Kesavananda Bharati’s legal team contended that while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution, this power could not be wielded to obliterate or alter the Constitution’s basic structure—a nebulous yet crucial concept. This pivotal argument set the stage for a landmark decision that would delineate the boundaries of constitutional amendments and underscore the foundational principles that form the bedrock of India’s supreme legal document. The case, therefore, emerged as a watershed moment in constitutional law, grappling not only with property rights but with the very essence of the Indian Constitution.

PETITIONER’S DEMANDS:

Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner in the case, primarily sought to protect the autonomy and management rights of the religious institution he represented, the Edneer Mutt, from the encroachment of the Kerala government. His demands were centered on challenging the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which aimed to regulate the administration of properties owned by religious entities.

Specifically, the petitioner argued that the state’s interference in the management of these properties amounted to a violation of fundamental rights, particularly those related to religious freedom. Kesavananda Bharati contended that the Act infringed upon the Mutt’s right to administer its affairs independently, impacting religious practices and traditions.

As the case unfolded, the petitioner’s demands evolved beyond the immediate property dispute. The crux of his argument expanded to challenge the unlimited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Kesavananda Bharati and his legal team contended that while Parliament had the authority to amend, this power should not extend to altering the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

In essence, Kesavananda Bharati’s demands pivoted from a specific property rights issue to a broader constitutional challenge, ultimately seeking to establish a precedent that would safeguard the core principles and integrity of the Indian Constitution from arbitrary amendments. The case, therefore, became a pivotal moment in constitutional history, shaping the trajectory of constitutional interpretation in India.

OPPOSITION’S ARGUMENTS:

In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the State of Kerala, representing the opposition, put forth arguments defending the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and its provisions regulating the administration of properties owned by religious institutions, including the Edneer Mutt.

1. Legitimate State Interest:

The opposition contended that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was driven by a legitimate state interest in implementing agrarian reforms and preventing the concentration of land in a few hands. They argued that the regulation of religious institutions’ properties was a means to achieve broader socio-economic objectives.

2. Constitutional Authority to Amend:

The State of Kerala, relying on parliamentary powers under Article 368, argued that the Constitution explicitly granted authority to Parliament to amend its provisions. They emphasized that this authority included the ability to make changes, even substantial ones, to adapt to changing societal needs and circumstances.

3. No Infringement of Fundamental Rights:

The opposition asserted that the Act did not infringe upon any fundamental rights, including religious freedoms. Instead, they contended that the regulations were in line with the directive principles of state policy aimed at securing social and economic justice.

4. Parliamentary Sovereignty:

The State underscored the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, asserting that Parliament held the supreme authority to amend the Constitution. They argued against any implied limitations on this power, maintaining that the Constitution did not explicitly restrict the scope of amendments.

While the opposition presented these arguments, the essence of the Kesavananda Bharati case lies in the fact that the majority of the Supreme Court, in a narrow 7-6 decision, ruled in favor of the petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, introducing the doctrine of the basic structure and limiting the scope of parliamentary power to amend the Constitution.

JUDGEMENTS RULED:

The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, delivered on April 24, 1973, by a historic 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, has left an indelible mark on the country’s constitutional jurisprudence. The majority verdict, with a slender margin of 7-6, articulated the concept of the “Basic Structure” doctrine, forever altering the landscape of constitutional amendments in India.

Chief Justice Sikri, delivering the lead judgment, acknowledged the authority of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 but crucially introduced the limitation that such amendments should not alter its “basic structure” or essential features. The court held that while the power to amend was plenary, it was not absolute and could not be wielded to destroy the Constitution’s identity and its foundational principles.

The judgment began by recognizing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, emphasizing the need to preserve its sanctity. It asserted that the Constitution was not just a legal document but the embodiment of the nation’s aspirations and values. Chief Justice Sikri, supported by Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, and Jagmohan Reddy, held that the amending power under Article 368 did not extend to altering the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Basic Structure doctrine, though not exhaustively defined, was identified to include features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secularism, federalism, and separation of powers. The court clarified that the list was not exhaustive and could evolve with time.

While recognizing the importance of the amending power, the majority maintained that it could not be used to destroy the Constitution’s core identity. Any amendment that violated the basic structure would be deemed unconstitutional. This ruling provided a judicial check on the otherwise wide-ranging power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Justice Khanna, in a concurring opinion, eloquently stated that the Constitution’s basic structure was the conscience of the Constitution. He emphasized that certain principles were so fundamental that they could not be altered, ensuring continuity in the country’s constitutional ethos.

Notably, six judges dissented, arguing for an absolute power of Parliament to amend without restrictions based on the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. The dissenting judges contended that the Constitution did not envisage any implied limitations on the amending power and that the court should not interfere with parliamentary decisions.

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment laid the foundation for future constitutional interpretations in India. It set a precedent for judicial review of constitutional amendments, providing a safeguard against arbitrary changes to the Constitution’s fundamental principles. The Basic Structure doctrine has since been reaffirmed in subsequent cases, shaping the evolution of Indian constitutional law and reinforcing the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE:

The Kesavananda Bharati case holds profound significance in the constitutional history of India, marking a watershed moment that shaped the country’s legal landscape and governance. Its impact resonates across multiple dimensions, establishing key principles that continue to influence constitutional interpretation and the balance of power between branches of government.

1. Basic Structure Doctrine:

Perhaps the most consequential outcome of the case is the articulation of the Basic Structure doctrine. This doctrine, while not exhaustively defined, recognizes certain essential features of the Constitution that cannot be amended by the Parliament’s exercise of its amending power under Article 368. The concept of the basic structure serves as a bulwark against arbitrary changes to the Constitution, ensuring the preservation of its core values.

2. Limitation on Parliamentary Power:

The judgment introduced a crucial limitation on the plenary power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It clarified that while Parliament had the authority to amend, this power was not absolute and could not be used to destroy the Constitution’s identity. This marked a departure from the earlier perspective that Parliament’s authority to amend was unlimited.

3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments:

Kesavananda Bharati laid the groundwork for the judiciary’s role in reviewing constitutional amendments. It empowered the courts to scrutinize amendments to ensure they did not violate the basic structure. This marked a significant shift in the balance of power, enhancing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter and protector of the Constitution.

4. Preservation of Constitutional Values:

The case emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution and the need to protect its foundational values. It underscored that certain principles, like democracy, secularism, and federalism, were sacrosanct and beyond the reach of arbitrary alterations through amendments. This decision reinforced the notion that the Constitution was not merely a legal document but a reflection of the nation’s collective ethos.

5. Legacy and Precedent:

The Kesavananda Bharati case set a precedent for subsequent constitutional challenges and amendments. The Basic Structure doctrine has been cited and reaffirmed in several landmark cases, solidifying its status as a guiding principle in constitutional law. The judgment’s legacy endures in shaping the approach of the Indian judiciary to issues related to constitutional amendments and the protection of fundamental principles.

6. Balancing Flexibility and Rigidity:

The case struck a delicate balance between the need for a flexible constitution that could adapt to changing times and the imperative of preserving its fundamental character. It established a dynamic equilibrium that allows for amendments while safeguarding the enduring values that form the bedrock of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION:

This argument laid the foundation for the doctrine of the “Basic Structure,” a legal principle that safeguards certain fundamental elements of the Constitution from arbitrary amendments. The case saw a bench of 13 judges, the largest ever constituted in the history of the Supreme Court. The court, through a narrow majority of 7-6, upheld the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution but also established the limitation that such amendments should not violate its basic structure.

Kesavananda Bharati’s case left an indelible mark on India’s legal landscape, shaping subsequent jurisprudence and influencing constitutional interpretation. The judgment emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution and the need to protect its foundational principles, ensuring that while amendments could adapt the Constitution to changing times, they could not alter its essential character. This decision laid the groundwork for a delicate balance between the flexibility of constitutional amendments and the immutable nature of the Constitution’s core values.

In summary, the Kesavananda Bharati case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, safeguarding the essence of the Constitution through the Basic Structure doctrine and delineating the contours of parliamentary power. Its enduring legacy continues to resonate, influencing legal thought and constitutional development in India.

REFERENCES:

50 Years of Kesavananda Bharati Judgment – Drishti IAS https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-uop

Kesavananda Bharati: The monk who saved the Constitution – Deccan Herald https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/k

Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala – Judgement & Importance – Testbook https://testbook.com/amp/iasoguj

Who was Kesvananda Bharati and how was he associated with the ‘Basic … https://indianexpress.com/article/pphl0

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q