Author: Er. Kabir Khan B.E(Civil Eng.), LLB, LLM
Introduction:
“Keshavananda Bharati case: Preserving the Constitutional Soul” delve into a pivotal judgment by the Indian judiciary. It is a landmark decision that profoundly shaped constitutional law. The Keshavananda Bharati case began due to land reform efforts in Kerala during the 1950s and 1960s. Sri Keshavananda Bharati challenged land ownership restrictions in the Kerala High Court. The case was later taken to the Supreme Court, which supported the state’s position. In 1970, Kerala imposed land limits on religious institutions, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling for the state.
Meanwhile, India’s Parliament passed the 24th Amendment, curbing judicial powers, and the 25th and 29th Amendments, restricting fundamental rights. Keshavananda challenged these amendments, alleging a violation of the Constitution’s basic structure. The subsequent Keshavananda Bharti case judgment upheld the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power and influencing Indian constitutional history.
The Keshavananda Bharti case judgment, delivered on April 24, 1973, is a landmark by India’s Supreme Court. Sri Keshavananda Bharati, head of a Hindu religious mutt, challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. These amendments aimed to limit judicial review of certain laws. powers and citizens’ rights. A bench of 13 judges, in a 7:6 majority, introduced the basic structure doctrine, safeguarding key constitutional elements. This case checks Parliament’s power, ensuring the Constitution’s adaptability while upholding fundamental values. Keshavananda Bharati case remains a pivotal milestone in Indian constitutional law.
Key Legal Issues of Keshavananda Bharti case:
Assessment of the Constitutionality of Kerala’s Land Reforms:
The central concern in the Keshavananda Bharati case was the Act’s constitutional validity. This Act restricted land ownership and allowed for the acquisition of excess land. Keshavananda Bharati contended it violated his constitutional right to property.
Extent of Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution:
A key issue in the Keshavananda Bharati case was the limit to Parliament’s authority. The case questioned how far Parliament could go in amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court deliberated whether this power was limitless or subject to constraints.
Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution:
In the Keshavananda Bharati case, the court introduced the doctrine of the basic structure. It asserted that fundamental constitutional features like supremacy, rule of law, and judicial independence were beyond Parliament’s amendment powers. The key question was whether this doctrine was integral to the Constitution and if Parliament could amend it.
In summary, the Keshavananda Bharati case focused on the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It also led to the establishment of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Background of Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case:
The Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case had its roots in the 24th Amendment to the Indian Constitution, enacted as a response to prior judicial rulings that restricted the expansive amending authority of
the Parliament. Preceding decisions, particularly the “Golaknath” and “Keshavananda Bharti case” , had imposed limitations on Parliament’s ability to alter certain aspects of the Constitution, particularly the Fundamental Rights.
In an effort to overcome these limitations and solidify its amending powers, the Indian Parliament introduced the 24th Amendment in 1971. The amendment aimed to explicitly confer upon Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the hitherto safeguarded Fundamental Rights, without constraints. The objective was to counteract judicial decisions that had imposed implicit restrictions on the extent to which the Constitution could be amended.
Swami Keshavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th Amendment, contending that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. This legal challenge set the stage for a landmark legal battle that ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973, establishing the doctrine that while Parliament possessed t
he power to amend, it could not tamper with the basic structure of the Constitution. This decision significantly shaped the trajectory of constitutional jurisprudence in India.
Facts of Keshavananda Bharati Case:
Petitioner: Keshavananda Bharati case:
Keshavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu matha (monastic organization) in Kerala, challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th Amendment.
Issue at Hand in Keshavananda Bharati case:
- Extent of Parliament’s Power: Whether Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Whether there were certain “basic features” of the Constitution that could not be altered or destroyed by amendments.
- Impact on Fundamental Rights: Whether the amendments in question violated citizens’ fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
- Validity of Amendments: The validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which were challenged as infringing on the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Judicial Review: Whether the judiciary had the power to review and strike down amendments that violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Arguments in of Keshavananda Bharati case:
Petitioner’s Argument in Keshavananda Bharti case:
- Implied Limitations on Parliamentary Power: Keshavananda Bharati asserted that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution was not absolute.
- Existence of a “Basic Structure”: He argued that there is a fundamental concept known as the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
- Essence of the Constitutional Framework: According to Keshavananda Bharati, this Basic Structure is integral to the constitutional framework.
- Inalterability of the Basic Structure: He contended that the Basic Structure should be considered immune from alterations through amendments.
- Violation by the 24th Amendment: Specifically, Keshavananda Bharati argued that the 24th Amendment, by seeking to confer unlimited power to amend upon Parliament, violated this Basic Structure.
- Protection of Fundamental Principles: He believed that certain essential features form the foundation for the entire constitutional edifice. He called these features the Basic Structure.
- Preservation of Constitutional Essence: Keshavananda Bharati’s argument aimed at preserving the essence of the Constitution by limiting the amending power of the Parliament and ensuring the safeguarding of fundamental principles.
Government’s Argument in Keshavananda Bharti case:
The Plenary Nature of Parliamentary Power:
The government asserted that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is plenary, implying that it is absolute and unqualified.
Rejection of Implied Limitations:
They argued against the existence of any implied limitations on the amending power of the Parliament.
Necessity of the 24th Amendment:
The government contended that the 24th Amendment was necessary to address and rectify the limitations imposed by earlier judicial decisions, particularly those arising from cases such as “Golaknath” and “Keshavananda Bharati.”
Undoing Judicial Constraints:
Their position was that the amendments were crucial for undoing constraints that the judiciary had imposed on the Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution.
Judicial Overreach:
The government argued that prior judicial decisions had unduly restricted the legislative power, and the 24th Amendment was a corrective measure.
Emphasis on Legislative Supremacy:
They emphasized the supremacy of the legislative branch and the need for Parliament to exercise its authority without undue interference.
Defending Parliament’s Autonomy:
The government’s stance aimed at upholding the autonomy of Parliament in the constitutional amendment process. They asserted that Parliament should not be restricted by limitations imposed by the judiciary.
Context of Constitutional Amendments:
Their arguments were situated in the context of a series of amendments and legal battles. These events shaped the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in India.
Judgment of Keshavananda Bharati case:
The case was heard by the largest-ever Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising 13 judges. The judgment, delivered on April 24, 1973, by a slim majority of 7-6, held that:
Parliament’s Power to Amend: The majority upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but with limitations.
Basic Structure Doctrine: The majority introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
Scope of Judicial Review: The judgment clarified that the scope of judicial review includes the power to determine whether an amendment violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Impact of Keshavananda Bharati case:
Basic Structure Doctrine Established: Keshavananda Bharati case firmly established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has since become a guiding principle for constitutional interpretation.
Limitations on Amending Power: The case introduced limitations on the amending power of Parliament, ensuring the protection of essential features of the Constitution.
Judicial Review Reinforced: The judgment reinforced the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution by asserting its authority to review constitutional amendments for compliance with the Basic Structure
Other Major Cases Leading to Basic Structure Doctrine?
The development of the basic structure doctrine in India was a slow process, influenced by various key cases. The Keshavananda Bharati case (1973) is the landmark judgment that explicitly established the doctrine. However, earlier cases laid the groundwork for its development. Here are some key cases cases that played a role in the development and establishment of the basic structure doctrine in constitutional law.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951):
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act. This Act added Article 31A and Article 31B to the Constitution. The court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was very wide. It also stated that this power did not have any implied limitations.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act. The Act sought to place land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule. The court upheld the amendment. However, it recognized that the amending power was not unlimited but did not explicitly articulate a doctrine of basic structure.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967):
The Golak Nath case was a major turning point. The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The decision was later overruled by the 24th Amendment. However, the case marked the beginning of the judicial exploration of the limits of amending power.
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970):
This case is notable for discussing the limitations on the power of amendment and the concept of essential features. The court, in its judgment, recognized that certain features of the Constitution might be so essential that they cannot be amended.
Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971):
In this case, the court emphasized the concept of inherent limitations on the amending power and recognized the need to protect the core of the Constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):
While not a direct case on the basic structure doctrine, the judgment highlighted the supremacy of the Constitution and the importance of preserving its democratic character.
These cases, among others, contributed to the development of the basic structure doctrine by discussing the limits of the amending power and the inherent constraints on altering certain fundamental features of the Constitution.
Conclusion:
The Keshavananda Bharati case (1973) holds a significant place in India’s history. It showed how Parliament’s power and the Constitution’s rules work together. The decision made it clear that Parliament can make changes to the Constitution. However, it can’t change its most important parts. This ruling helped protect the basic ideas of India’s democracy. It made sure that even Parliament’s power has limits. This way, the Constitution’s key values are always respected.
Leave a Reply