Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) : case analysis

Table of Contents

Critic Takeaways:

The Basic Structure Doctrine is a legal principle that affirms the existence of some fundamental and unalterable elements inside the Constitution.
The amending power of Parliament has been clarified to explicitly state that it is not permissible for Parliament to modify the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
Judicial Review: Confirmed the Supreme Court’s authority to examine and invalidate amendments that are in violation of the constitution.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Amendments are prohibited from violating fundamental rights if they impact the fundamental framework.
The majority opinion was delivered by a slim majority of 7 out of 13 judges on the bench.
The principles of federalism and secularism have been officially recognized as integral components of the fundamental framework.
Kesavananda Bharati played a pivotal role in challenging state-imposed limitations on religious property.
Establish a precedent for assessing forthcoming constitutional revisions.
Political and Legal Impact: Restrained the government’s authority to enact extensive constitutional modifications.
Continued Relevance: It continues to be a fundamental and significant case in Indian constitutional law.

Introduction

The case of Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) was the first instance that established the fundamental structural theory. The doctrine mandates that legislative bodies adhere to it while using their authority to make amendments. While individuals possess the authority to modify any aspect of the Constitution, they are prohibited from altering the fundamental framework as outlined in Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. This case is notable since the Supreme Court convened a panel of thirteen justices to provide a verdict on this topic. The judges’ ruling so far has had a significant influence on our culture. The Supreme Court’s ruling is distinctive and contemplative. The bench’s ruling spanned over 700 pages and provided a resolution for both Parliament’s authority to amend legislation under Article 368 and people’ entitlement to protect their basic rights. The significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case lies in its establishment of the idea of fundamental structure, which serves to protect the interests of both people and the Parliament. This case was the first to introduce this doctrine. In this ruling, the Bench resolved the unresolved inquiries from the Golaknath case. This lawsuit invalidated the ruling made in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case by setting certain restrictions on the Parliament’s authority to alter. While this judgement affirms that the Parliament has the authority to change any portion of the Constitution under Article 368, it is subject to certain limits. They lack the ability to make endless changes to it. The idea of basic structure was established to safeguard against any encroachment on the fundamental rights of people by modifications.

Historical background of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In India, the three primary branches of government operate independently, each carrying out their own functions. While the legislative and executive branches work closely together, the Indian judiciary is intentionally preserved as an autonomous organization. The legislative is responsible for creating laws, while the executive branch is responsible for enforcing those laws, and the judicial branch is responsible for resolving disputes related to those laws. In the early 1970s, India had a conflict between two dominant forces, the legislative and judicial branches. This resulted in the significant ruling of the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case.

The Supreme Court of India issued a landmark ruling that is valuable for ascertaining the authority of the three democratic government institutions. The judgment in this case took over five months to be reached. This lawsuit upheld the dignity and integrity of the Indian Constitution. It established a fundamental framework of principles for all the superior courts and subordinate courts in India.

Prior to the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, the right to property was regarded as a basic right. During that period, the Zamindars submitted petitions to many high courts, alleging that their basic rights were being infringed upon by the implementation of agrarian land reform legislation. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was affirmed by the High Court of Patna. Following the implementation of this legislation, the Constituent Assembly approved the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1951. This amendment safeguarded land reform policies by preventing them from being subjected to judicial scrutiny. Article 31B, an addition to the 9th Schedule, stipulates that legislation cannot be contested on the basis that they infringe upon basic rights. The concept of fundamental structure originated from the following pivotal legal cases:

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Zamindars initiated legal proceedings against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. This amendment, which included changes under Article 13(2) of the Constitution, prohibited the Indian Parliament from enacting legislation that might infringe upon basic rights. The Supreme Court’s five bench justices rejected the petition, asserting that constitutional changes are outside the scope of judicial review and that Article 13 only applies to regular statutes. The Supreme Court noted that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution gives the Parliament the authority to modify the Constitution, which encompasses basic rights.

This case facilitated the incorporation of Article 31A and Article 31B into the Constitution, which allowed for the implementation of land reform policies that were previously hindered by the existence of the right to property article in Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that Article 13 specifically encompasses regular legislation, but does not extend to constitutional amendments, which are enacted via the exercise of constituent authority. Therefore, it is immune from judicial examination.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

The case of Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) was a challenge to the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, which was enacted in 1964. This amendment included 44 further clauses to the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that this change violated basic rights due to its improper procedural implementation. While the justices had differing viewpoints, Justice Mudholkar articulated his views on certain concerns that are essential for the fundamental structure concept.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition, affirming that Parliament had unrestricted authority to enact an amendment in accordance with Article 368 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling made in the Shankari Prasad case and determined that Parliament has the authority to modify any aspect of the Constitution, including basic rights.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab

The case of I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) pertained to the issue of whether the Parliament had the authority to modify the basic rights of Indian people. The landlords contested the constitutional legitimacy of the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments enacted by the Parliament. A panel of eleven judges was established to examine the matter of the constitutional legality of these modifications and whether the Legislature has been authorized to modify basic rights. A majority of six judges rendered this verdict, affirming that the Parliament lacks the authority to modify Part III of the Constitution in order to diminish or curtail basic rights. This ruling limited the authority of Parliament to modify any basic rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution. The verdict rendered in this case overturned the ruling in the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case. The legal experts in the nation mostly rejected Golaknath’s perspective as stated in the ruling.

It was claimed that Article 368 of the Constitution included not only the procedure of amendment but also the actual capacity to make substantial changes. This ruling was upheld in many instances until it was contested in the significant legal case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. In this instance, the perspective was altered and it was determined that Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to modify any aspect of the Constitution, including Article 368 itself. However, it also included specific restrictions that said the “fundamental characteristics” of the constitution could not be modified or eliminated. The further revisions were enacted after the legal challenge of the Golaknath’s case:

24th Amendment

In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court ruled that any alteration made under Article 368 shall be considered an exemption under Article 13. In order to counteract this effect, the Parliament added clause 4 to Article 13 of the Constitution through an amendment. This clause allows the government to pass laws that implement the directive principles of state policy, even if they contradict or violate the fundamental rights of the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that no amendment can have any impact under Article 13.

In order to eliminate any potential confusion, the Parliament included clause 3 to Article 368, which states: “Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.”

In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court noted that Article 368 formerly included a clause that conferred the process of modification rather than the power to alter. Consequently, the Court made changes to Article 368 by adding the phrase ‘power’ to the marginal note, so including it inside the article. The primary purpose of the 24th Amendment is to eliminate any other options for the President to decline or retain a measure. Parliament approved this Amendment with the purpose of protecting their authority to make changes from the limitation indicated in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

25th Amendment

The Parliament explicitly stated in the 25th Amendment that they are not obligated to provide sufficient compensation to landlords if their property is seized by the state government. In order to enforce that clause, the Parliament, in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Constitution, substituted the term ‘compensation’ with the term ‘amount’. Consequently, the connection between Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) was eliminated, resulting in the inclusion of a new provision. Article 31(c) of the Constitution was included to address any challenges and achieve the goals outlined in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c). It was determined that the provisions of Article 14, Article 19, and Article 31 would not be applicable to any legislation. In order to enforce the provisions of Article 39(b) and Article 39(c), the court was granted immunity from interfering in any legislation enacted by the Parliament.

29th Amendment

In 1972, the 29th Amendment included the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1963) into the 9th Schedule. This legislation explicitly declared that the jurisdiction of the court would not extend to cases pertaining to the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The inclusion of this topic in the 9th Schedule was deliberate in order to prevent the Judiciary from having jurisdiction over it. The modifications enacted by the Central Government provided a measure of safeguarding the amendments made by the State Government from being subject to legal proceedings. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as well as the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, were contested in a court of law.

Summary of facts in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Keshvananda Bharati, the petitioner in this case, held the position of leader at the Edneer Mutt, a religious institution affiliated with a sect in the Kasaragod region of Kerala. Kesavananda Bharati owned certain parcels of property inside the religious community, which were acquired under his name. Consequently, he had ownership of that piece of property. In 1969, the State Government of Kerala implemented the property Reforms Amendment Act, which granted the government the authority to buy a portion of the property owned by the sect headed by Kesavananda Bharati. Kesavananda Bharati initiated legal proceedings in the Supreme Court on 21st March, 1970, invoking Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to assert his rights protected under Article 25 (freedom to practice and propagate religion), Article 26 (authority to administer religious affairs), Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to own property), and Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property). While the court was still reviewing the petition, the Kerala government enacted another law known as the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971.

Issues before the court

Can the Constitutional Amendment be applied to basic rights in accordance with Article 368 of the Constitution?
Is the 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971, constitutionally valid?
Is the 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972, constitutionally valid?
Is the 29th Constitutional (Amendment) Act legally legitimate, and what are the limits to Parliament’s authority in amending the Constitution?

Contentions by parties on issues

Petitioner’s contentions

The petitioner argued that the Parliament does not have the authority to modify the Constitution at its discretion. Granting them unlimited authority is not feasible due to the potential for misuse. The Parliament is not authorized to modify the constitution by altering its fundamental framework, as established by Justice Mudhokar in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case. He said that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments infringed upon the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. Here are some key elements of the arguments:

It was argued that Article 368 of the Constitution does not provide the power to modify, alter, or abolish the essential structure of the Constitution or the fundamental rights of the population.
It was argued that the word ‘amendment’ does not imply that the essential nature or structure of the Constitution may be changed or eliminated while exercising the power to modify.
Furthermore, it has been contended that the Constitution itself grants this right to alter, and as a result, it is subject to inherent restrictions.
Furthermore, it was argued that the Parliament lacks the authority to modify the basic rights of Indian people.

Respondent’s contentions

The state was the respondent in this lawsuit. It was argued that the paramount authority of Parliament is the fundamental tenet of the Indian legal system, and hence, Parliament has the authority to modify the Constitution without any restrictions. Here are some key elements of the arguments:

The primary argument put up by the respondent was that Parliament had unrestricted amending authority to modify any aspect of the Constitution without any exceptions. Parliament is granted this authority in accordance with the requirements outlined in Article 368 of the Constitution.
It was argued that the phrase ‘amendment’ in Article 368 of the Constitution allows for the addition, alteration, modification, repeal, or abrogation of any portion of the Constitution.
The state further argued that there are no inherent limitations to the modifying authority, save from the procedural limitations specified in Article 368.
It was argued that the Indian Parliament has the authority to modify the basic rights by revoking or eliminating them if they deem it essential to do so via their constituent power.
Furthermore, it was said that the individuals comprising the Parliament are chosen by the populace of India and so possess the authority to amend the core statutes in accordance with the requirements of the residents.

Ratio decidendi of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and supported by Justices K.S. Hegde, J.M. Shelat, Jaganmohan Reddy, A.N. Grover, Hans Raj Khanna, and B.K. Mukherjea, held that while the power to amend the Constitution exists, it does not extend to amending the fundamental structure of the Constitution. The principle was established that the fundamental structure of the Constitution should remain intact while making amendments to any specific provisions of the Constitution.

According to Justices Y. V. Chandrachud, D.G. Palekar, A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, K.K. Mathew, and SN Dwivedi, Article 368 has the power to establish, modify, or eliminate any provisions of the Constitution, except for those that pertain to basic rights. This authority includes the ability to introduce, alter, and remove any or all of the articles of the Constitution, save for those that pertain to fundamental rights.

In addition to the aforementioned perspectives, Justice Khanna noted that the authority to modify the Constitution does not extend to altering its fundamental framework.

Justice Mathew and Justice Ray agreed with the concept of plenary rights. They assert that the Indian Constitution is not capable of being completely revoked, resulting in a state of constitutional nullity. They argued that the changes should include government procedures to establish, create, interpret, and enforce laws.

Judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati case was decided on April 24, 1973, with a narrow majority of 7:6. Seven of the justices held the opinion that the Indian Constitution may be amended, similar to other laws and legislation. The justices allowed it in order to meet the socio-economic responsibilities of the State towards the residents of India. The basic rights are bestowed upon individuals, and the Parliament does not have the authority to alter or modify any of these rights by amendments. The fundamental framework must stay unchanged. Six of the justices, constituting the minority, held the view that the Parliament should not possess unrestricted authority to modify the Constitution.

The precedent-setting case was resolved on April 24, 1973, with the ruling issued by S.M. Sikri CJI, K.S. Hegde, B.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy JJ, and Khanna J. The minority views were authored by A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud J. The opposing verdict was rendered by other justices who were hesitant to provide unrestricted power to Parliament. The court affirmed the complete legality of the 24th Amendment. However, in the instance of the 25th Amendment, it was determined that the first half was within the legal authority and the second part was outside the legal authority. The Court provided comprehensive responses to the previously unresolved questions about the Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution, which were raised in the Golaknath case. The solution to the issue was discovered in the Kesavananda Bharati case, whereby the court determined that the Parliament had the authority to modify the Constitution as long as such modifications do not alter the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. The court established that the Parliament must adhere to the theory of fundamental structure while making amendments to the Constitution.

Critical Analysis of the judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the majority of the court sought to safeguard the Indian Constitution by upholding its fundamental characteristics. They chose not to provide unfettered authority to change the Constitution, recognizing the potential for future government abuse. It conferred stability to the Constitution. While the petitioner did not win his case completely, the verdict delivered by the panel in this matter proved to be a protector of Indian democracy and preserved the essence of the Constitution.

This case significantly influenced the reassessment of the rulings made in the cases of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, and Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The Supreme Court noted that the Parliament had the authority to modify the Constitution, particularly Part III, which pertains to the basic rights of individuals, as stated in Article 368. Consequently, it was determined that any section of the Indian Constitution may be modified, as long as the fundamental structure of the Constitution remains intact. This decision supported the principle of fundamental framework.

The Supreme Court justices expressed their views on the elements that are essential to the fundamental framework of the Constitution and should remain unaltered throughout any amendment process. Justice Sikri, who served as the Chief Justice of India at that time, identified the following characteristics as the fundamental framework of the Constitution that should remain unaltered:

The Dominance of the Constitution,
The separation of powers among the three primary branches of government, namely the legislative, executive, and judiciary,
The constitutional structure of the government, characterized by a federal system,
The Constitution’s secular character and its adoption of a democratic and republican system of governance.
Additionally, Justice Grover, Justice Mukherjea, Justice Hegde, Justice Reddy, and Justice Shelat made further contributions to the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

These additions include the following features:

It is essential to preserve the cohesion and wholeness of the country.
It is important to safeguard the autonomy of people.
The preservation of the nation’s sovereignty must be maintained.
The preservation of parliamentary democracy is crucial.
A society characterized by equality must be established.

It is imperative to uphold the inherent worth of persons, which is guaranteed via basic rights, and to establish a welfare state in line with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
While the justices of the Supreme Court could not reach a majority decision on establishing a certain fundamental framework, they were able to effectively protect the essence of Indian democracy. This case effectively broadened the range of judicial review. Following this judgment, the Supreme Court gained the power to examine and reject any modification that violates the fundamental structure of the Constitution, so limiting the Parliament’s unconstrained jurisdiction to modify the Constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court of India has unrestricted authority to scrutinize the Constitution and establish its dominance in interpreting the Constitution.

Implications of the judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated Clause (4) of Article 329-A of the 39th Amendment Act. This clause had stipulated that the electoral matters concerning the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha shall be exempt from the jurisdiction of all courts. According to the Supreme Court, this clause modifies the fundamental foundation and structure of the Constitution, hence Parliament lacks the power to modify it.

The Supreme Court affirmed the idea of fundamental structure in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). This landmark ruling gained significant recognition due to the incorporation of two new elements into the roster of fundamental structure theory. Initially, the concept of judicial review was created, followed by the establishment of a harmonious relationship between basic rights and directive principles. The Supreme Court has declared that the Parliament has the authority to modify the fundamental rights in order to enforce the directive principles, as long as the revision does not undermine or impede the core framework of the Constitution.

In the Waman Rao and Ors. v. Union of India (1980) case, a lawsuit was initiated in the Bombay High Court to contest the lowered limit on agricultural land holdings as stipulated by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, along with further modifications that were enacted. The petitioner submitted the case in response to the government of Maharashtra’s imposition of a limit on agricultural land ownership. This petition was submitted during the time of emergency. During the period of emergency, it was not possible to implement Articles 14 and 19. The constitutional legitimacy of Article 31A, pertaining to land acquisition requirements, and Article 31B, which validates legislation and grants them protection from judicial review, were contested. The Court examined both articles and affirmed their constitutional validity.

The Supreme Court’s ruling states that an action that infringes upon fundamental rights does not necessarily violate the basic structural theory. Both notions are completely distinct. An act that infringes against the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution does not necessarily undermine the basic structural theory of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also declared that orders issued prior to the implementation of the fundamental structural concept would continue to be legally binding. Consequently, the Kesavananda Bharati case established that all acts and regulations coming within the 9th schedule of the Indian Constitution, which were enacted after April 24, 1973, would be incorporated. If the rules do not fulfill the test standards or the stated boundaries or reasons, they will be removed from the schedule via the process of judicial review.

In the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, S.R. Bommai, filed a writ petition after his political party, Janta Dal, was disbanded due to insufficient support. As a result, the President’s authority was imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution. In this instance, the petitioner urged the governor to conduct a comprehensive inquiry and floor test to assess the party’s majority. The governor rejected his proposal, and he was unable to substantiate his majority. He proceeded to the Karnataka High Court and filed a writ suit challenging the Governor’s decision. Nevertheless, the Karnataka High Court rejected his plea. Subsequently, he proceeded to the Supreme Court and filed an appeal in which he said that the ousting of his administration was just a political tactic and that the installation of presidential rule was in bad faith, since there was no genuine justification for it.

The Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking ruling outlining certain crucial principles that must be adhered to in the future. These principles are as follows:
The authority to enforce the President’s rule in a state is not unrestricted, and it needs the previous endorsement of both Houses of Parliament.
The president’s authority to depose the government of a state is not unlimited. It should be completed upon the approval of both chambers.
The President is authorized to temporarily suspend the Legislative Assembly.
If the Houses of Parliament fail to adopt the proclamation, it will expire after a duration of two months, and the previously ousted administration would be reinstated. The cessation of the Legislative Assembly’s suspension will also conclude.

The Apex Court further affirmed that the declaration of President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure fairness to all parties involved. The ruling also clarified that the assessment of majority must be conducted appropriately during the Assembly session, and the Governor is not entitled to express their view on this topic. The Supreme Court said that if any activities performed by a state government contravene a basic element of the Constitution, then the federal government has been bestowed with the prerogative to use its jurisdiction under Article 356. After the Babri Masjid was destroyed, the Supreme Court used the notion of “secularism,” a key concept in the Preamble, to support the implementation of Article 356. This case serves as a significant example in which the Court emphasized ‘secularism,’ a fundamental part of the basic structural doctrine.

In the case of I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), a unanimous verdict was rendered by a nine judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice Sabharwal. Several laws that were previously deemed arbitrary and illegal have been included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The 66th Amendment in 1990 incorporated Acts such as Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, and the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969. During the handling of this matter, the Waman Rao case was cited. In this instance, the judges rendered a majority verdict affirming that legislation included into the Ninth Schedule after April 24th, 1973, may be contested if it is determined that the law is contravening Articles 14, 19, 21, and other associated principles. Therefore, a panel of nine judges was established to assess and review the ruling of the Waman Rao’s case.

In this instance, the Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on safeguarding the basic rights of individuals. According to the statement, the Constitution allows the legislature to use the power of amendment as specified in Article 368, rather than the Constituent Assembly. The Court also said that any legislation that contravenes the fundamental framework of the Constitution should not be protected. The Court also outlined the criteria that would allow the legislature to avoid examination, which are as follows:

The Indian Constitution’s fundamental framework is often referred to as the basic structure. Hence, any laws or regulations that are enacted in contravention of the fundamental principles will not be accepted, and they will be deemed invalid.
If an amendment is made, and any statute is included in the Ninth Schedule that contradicts the basic rights of the people, the Court will invalidate it.
The Ninth Schedule, being an integral component of the Constitution, is prohibited from include any provisions that contravene Part III. Modifications to a specific part of the Constitution must adhere to the stipulations, and any detrimental existing sections must be eliminated.
The inclusion of clauses in the Ninth Schedule likely aims to infringe upon the basic rights of individuals. To ensure the protection of these rights, it is imperative to contemplate the elimination of those particular clauses from the Constitution, therefore safeguarding the inherent rights in the event of any infractions.

Importance of basic structure doctrine

The fundamental structure doctrine is a kind of judicial review used by the court to ascertain the legitimacy of a certain statute. The significance of the fundamental structure theory is as follows:

The core tenets and concepts of the Constitution are safeguarded by the basic structure doctrine. It signifies the protection of concepts such as the division of powers, the basic rights of individuals, and the principle of legal governance. It emphasizes the fact that the fundamental conceptions of the Constitution cannot be modified in a manner that might undermine its key principles.
The Judiciary, with the aid of the fundamental structure concept, prohibits any arbitrary constitutional revisions enacted by a political party. It serves as a crucial instrument for monitoring the absolute authority of Parliament to make changes. Consequently, the governing party is unable to alter the Constitution according to their own discretion.
The fundamental structure doctrine is responsible for preserving and maintaining the constitutional identity. It enables the Constitution to operate in its genuine and initial essence.
The Constitution achieves a balance between flexibility and rigidity via the implementation of the fundamental structure theory. It upholds the fundamental principles of the Constitution while avoiding any compromise on the necessary constitutional amendments. Therefore, the concept of fundamental structure serves as a protector of enduring constitutional ideas.

How were the directive principles of state policy applied in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The 25th Constitutional Amendment prioritized certain sections of directive principles of state policy, namely Article 39(B) and (C), above some basic rights such as Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Indian Constitution, in order to promote social welfare and economic democracy. Consequently, a new provision, Article 31(C), was added, and article 31(2(a)) was substituted with clause 2(b). This new amendment curtailed the freedom to own property and authorized the government to acquire private land for public use. The compensation for such acquisitions would be determined by Parliament rather than the courts. Furthermore, the Court’s capacity to do a judicial review of any pertinent issue was also diminished by the revision introduced in Article 31(c), which restricts the Court’s power to undertake a judicial review of any relevant subject.

Issues relating to basic structure doctrine

The fundamental structural philosophy is associated with many specific difficulties, which include the following:
The primary concern about the fundamental structure concept is the absence of a specific provision in the Constitution that explicitly establishes a basic structure immune to amendment authority.
Furthermore, the idea of fundamental structural doctrine contradicts the tripartite form of government, because the three branches possess distinct powers within a clearly defined jurisdiction.
Due to the absence of a clear definition of the fundamental structural concept in the Constitution, justices from various high courts interpret it differently based on their own subjective satisfaction.
Furthermore, the courts has the authority to invalidate any legislation if they determine that a specific law enacted by Parliament contradicts the fundamental structural concept.
The Judiciary has the authority to enforce its verdict on the democratically elected government of India, which has been established by the public.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was a pivotal legal case that solidified the foundation of Indian democracy and introduced the fundamental structure theory. This decision is significant since it protected the basic rights of people by establishing that any amendment conflicting with these rights would be deemed invalid. Thus, the Indian Judiciary curtailed the legislative authority to change and solidified the establishment of democracy. The majority of the judges in this case sought to safeguard the welfare of the population by rendering basic rights unalterable. This decision also established crucial and influential legal principles for the interpretation of the Constitution. A panel consisting of thirteen judges was established to adjudicate this case and provide a verdict. The court noted that granting the Legislature unrestricted authority to modify the Constitution might potentially result in its abuse or arbitrary exercise by the governing party according to their own desires. The unrestricted authority will result in capriciousness and autocracy, so altering the fundamental nature and ethos of the Indian Constitution. The fundamental structure theory was not accorded significance in the instances of Golaknath, Shankari Prasad, and Sajjan Singh. In order to maintain democracy, the Indian court created a concept that safeguards the rights of people against any encroachment by political parties. Thus, the fundamental structure concept effectively eliminates concerns about the potential for misuse or exploitation of power by any political party. This case exemplifies the independence of the Indian Judiciary, demonstrating that it is not affected by any administration. Therefore, this judgment served to reinforce the basic principles and bedrock of the Constitution.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What was the outcome of the Kesavananda Bharati case?

A: The Kesavananda Bharati case concluded that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or modify the basic structure of the Constitution. This ruling set a significant limitation on the Legislature’s amending power.

Q: When was the Kesavananda Bharati case filed?

A: The petition was filed by Kesavananda Bharati on 21st March 1970, contesting the violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 24, 25, and 29 of the Constitution.

Q: What is the Kesavananda Bharati case about?

A: The petitioner claimed that the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, infringed upon his fundamental rights, specifically the right to property under Article 31, the freedom of religious denomination under Article 26, and the right to worship and propagate religion under Article 25.

Q: Why is the Kesavananda Bharati case so important?

A: This case is significant because it challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. The petitioner argued that these amendments violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot change its basic structure. The Court held the 24th Amendment entirely void and the 25th Amendment partially void.

Q: Why is the Preamble an important part of the Constitution?

A: The Preamble is an introductory statement that outlines the Constitution’s philosophy and objectives. It reflects the intentions of the framers, the historical context of its creation, and the nation’s core values and principles.

Q: Is the Preamble of the Constitution amendable?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court observed that the Preamble is subject to amendments under Article 368, as it is part of the Constitution. However, any amendments must not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.