His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs State of Kerala
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 01 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
A. Brief overview of the Kesavananda Bharati case
The Kesavananda Bharati case, also known as the Fundamental Rights case, was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India in 1973. It dealt with the extent of the amending power of the Indian Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. The case arose from a challenge to the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to the Constitution, which aimed to enhance Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including the ability to abridge or take away fundamental rights.
The petitioner, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious figure, challenged these amendments, arguing that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution by allowing Parliament to abridge or take away fundamental rights. The case was heard by a 13-judge bench, the largest ever constituted in the Supreme Court's history.
B. Significance of the case in defining the amending power of the Indian Parliament
The Kesavananda Bharati case is significant because it defined the limits of Parliament's amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority of 7-6, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not unlimited and is subject to the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the state, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and the dignity and freedom of the individual, cannot be altered or destroyed by constitutional amendments.
The Court's decision established the doctrine of the basic structure, which acts as a limitation on the amending power of Parliament. This doctrine has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence and has been invoked in subsequent cases to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati case is significant because it struck a balance between the need for constitutional flexibility and the preservation of the Constitution's essential features. It recognized that while the Constitution should be amenable to change to meet the evolving needs of society, there are certain fundamental principles that must remain inviolable.
II. Background
A. Provisions related to constitutional amendments in India
The Constitution of India provides for the procedure to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Before the 24th Amendment, Article 368 stated that an amendment to the Constitution could be initiated by introducing a Bill in either House of Parliament. If the Bill was passed by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House, it would be presented to the President for assent. Upon receiving the President's assent, the Constitution would stand amended as per the terms of the Bill.
However, for certain provisions related to federal aspects, the amendment required ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. These provisions included matters related to the election of the President, the extent of the executive and legislative powers of the Union and the States, the High Courts for union territories, the representation of States in Parliament, and the provisions of Article 368 itself.
B. Historical context and previous court rulings
The scope and extent of the amending power under Article 368 had been a subject of debate and judicial interpretation over the years. In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the word 'law' in Article 13(2) was related to ordinary legislative power and not constitutional amendments. Therefore, Parliament could amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights provisions in Part III.
This view was reiterated in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). However, in the landmark case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decisions and held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to take away or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III.
The Golak Nath judgment was a narrow majority decision, and it had far-reaching implications for several constitutional amendments that had already been made, affecting fundamental rights. To avoid unsettling the existing laws, the Court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling and the doctrine of acquiescence, thereby upholding the validity of the amendments made before the Golak Nath judgment.
The Golak Nath decision raised concerns about the ability of the Constitution to adapt to changing societal needs and led to the 24th Amendment in 1971, which explicitly granted Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights provisions.
III. The Kesavananda Bharati Case
A. Key issues and arguments
The Kesavananda Bharati case raised fundamental questions about the extent of the amending power conferred by Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. The key issues and arguments revolved around the following:
1. Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments
1. The 24th Amendment sought to clarify that the term "law" in Article 13(2) did not include Constitutional amendments made under Article 368, thereby allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. The 25th Amendment introduced Article 31C, which stated that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(b) and (c) would not be deemed void on the ground of violating Articles 14, 19, and 31 (Fundamental Rights).
3. The 29th Amendment added two land reform acts of Kerala to the 9th Schedule, granting them immunity from judicial review
2. Extent of Parliament's Amending Power under Article 368
1. The respondents (Union of India and States) argued that Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including abrogating or taking away Fundamental Rights.
2. The petitioners contended that Parliament's amending power was limited and could not damage or destroy the essential features or basic structure of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
3. Doctrine of Basic Structure and Essential Features
1. The petitioners argued that certain essential features or the basic structure of the Constitution, such as Fundamental Rights, were unamendable and formed an implied limitation on Parliament's amending power.
2. The respondents rejected the existence of any implied or inherent limitations on the amending power, claiming it was wide and unfettered.
4. Interpretation of Article 368
1. The respondents claimed that Article 368 not only prescribed the procedure for amendment but also conferred the substantive power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. The petitioners argued that Article 368 only dealt with the procedure for amendment and did not confer the power to amend, which was subject to implied limitations.
5. Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
1. The respondents contended that the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) should take precedence over Fundamental Rights (Part III) in the interest of achieving the goals of a welfare state.
2. The petitioners maintained that Fundamental Rights were essential and could not be subordinated to the Directive Principles.
The case raised profound questions about the nature of the Indian Constitution, the balance between individual rights and societal goals, and the extent to which the Constitution could be amended by Parliament without altering its basic structure and core values.
IV. Analysis of the Judgments
A. The Majority View
The majority of judges in the Kesavananda Bharati case held that the power of Parliament under Article 368 to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that it cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. This view was based on the following reasoning: 1
. The Constitution is a living and organic document that must be interpreted in a manner that allows it to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. However, this does not mean that the Parliament has the power to abrogate or destroy the essential features or fundamental principles of the Constitution.
2. The Preamble to the Constitution, which declares the basic objectives and values of the Constitution, is a part of the Constitution and cannot be amended in a way that violates its basic philosophy.
3. The fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are essential for the preservation of human dignity and liberty, and they form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. While these rights are not absolute and can be reasonably restricted, they cannot be abrogated or emasculated by constitutional amendments.
4. The federal structure of the Constitution, with a division of powers between the Union and the States, is a basic feature that cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
5. The secular character of the Constitution, which ensures equality and nondiscrimination on the basis of religion, is a fundamental principle that cannot be violated by constitutional amendments.
6. The independence of the judiciary and the power of judicial review, which enables the courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, are essential features of the Constitution that cannot be compromised by constitutional amendments.
The majority view, therefore, sought to strike a balance between the need for constitutional amendments to keep pace with changing times and the preservation of the basic structure and fundamental principles of the Constitution.
B. The Dissenting Views
The dissenting judges, on the other hand, held that the power of Parliament under Article 368 to amend the Constitution is unlimited and that there are no inherent or implied limitations on this power. Their reasoning was as follows:
1. The language of Article 368 is clear and unambiguous, and it does not impose any restrictions on the amending power of Parliament. The word "amendment" should be given its plain and literal meaning, which includes the power to add, alter, or repeal any provision of the Constitution.
2. The Constituent Assembly debates and the speeches of the framers of the Constitution do not support the theory of implied limitations on the amending power.
3. The doctrine of basic structure or essential features is vague and subjective, and it would be difficult for the courts to determine what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. The power to amend the Constitution is a constituent power, and it cannot be limited by the judiciary, which exercises only a derivative power under the Constitution.
5. If the amending power is subject to limitations, it would lead to a situation where the Constitution becomes rigid and inflexible, unable to adapt to changing social and economic conditions.
The dissenting judges argued that the majority view would result in the judiciary becoming the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution, thereby undermining the principle of separation of powers and the supremacy of the Parliament in matters of constitutional amendments.
V. Implications and Significance
A. Impact on constitutional jurisprudence
The judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case has had a profound impact on the constitutional jurisprudence of India. It established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, which implies that while the Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the basic features or the essential elements of the Constitution. This doctrine acts as a check on the amending power of Parliament and ensures that the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Constitution remain inviolable.
The basic structure doctrine has been invoked by the Supreme Court in several subsequent cases to strike down constitutional amendments that were deemed to violate the basic structure. This has led to a delicate balance between the Parliament's amending power and the Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution's basic features.
B. Limitations on the amending power
The Kesavananda Bharati case clarified the scope and limitations of the amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The majority opinion held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not unlimited. The amendments cannot alter or destroy the basic structure or the essential features of the Constitution.
The Court identified certain features as part of the basic structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and the federal character of the Constitution. These features were deemed inviolable and beyond the reach of the amending power.
C. Protecting fundamental rights and the basic structure
One of the key implications of the Kesavananda Bharati case was the protection of fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court held that while the Parliament could amend the fundamental rights, it could not abrogate or completely take away these rights, as they form part of the basic structure.
The judgment emphasized that the fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy are complementary and must be balanced. While the Parliament can impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights to achieve the goals set out in the Directive Principles, it cannot completely abrogate these rights.
The basic structure doctrine has acted as a safeguard against the potential abuse of the amending power by the Parliament. It has ensured that the core values and principles enshrined in the Constitution remain intact, while allowing for necessary amendments to adapt to changing circumstances.
VI. Conclusion
A. Summary of key findings
The key findings of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case can be summarized as follows:
1. Overruling Golak Nath Case: The majority decision in the Golak Nath case, which held that Parliament had no power to amend the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, was overruled. The Court held that the power to amend under Article 368 was plenary and extended to all provisions of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
2. Validity of 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments: The Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to the Constitution. The 24th Amendment clarified that the power of amendment under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights. The 25th Amendment introduced Article 31C, which provided that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy could not be challenged on the ground of violating certain Fundamental Rights. The 29th Amendment added certain land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, thereby granting them immunity from judicial review.
3. Implied Limitations on Amending Power: While upholding the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, the Court held that the amending power was not unlimited. There were certain implied limitations on the amending power, which arose from the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. The Court did not explicitly define the basic structure, but it was generally understood to include features like the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic and republican form of government, the secular character of the state, the separation of powers, and the dignity and freedom of the individual.
4. Interpretation of Article 31C: The Court upheld the first part of Article 31C, which provided that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles in Articles 39(b) and 39(c) could not be challenged on the ground of violating certain Fundamental Rights. However, the Court struck down the second part of Article 31C, which stated that a law could not be challenged on the ground that it did not give effect to the Directive Principles, as this would have excluded judicial review altogether.
B. Ongoing debates and future challenges
The Kesavananda Bharati case settled some crucial issues regarding the amending power of Parliament, but it also left certain questions open for further debate and interpretation. Some of the ongoing debates and future challenges arising from this judgment include:
1. Defining the Basic Structure: While the Court recognized the existence of implied limitations on the amending power based on the basic structure of the Constitution, it did not provide a comprehensive definition or exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure. This has led to ongoing debates and interpretations by subsequent judgments and legal scholars.
2. Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The judgment highlighted the tension between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, which aim to promote social and economic justice. The Court upheld the ability of Parliament to enact laws giving effect to the Directive Principles, even if they conflict with certain Fundamental Rights. However, the extent to which this can be done without violating the basic structure remains a subject of debate.
3. Scope of Judicial Review: The Court's decision to strike down the second part of Article 31C, which sought to exclude judicial review of laws enacted under that provision, reaffirmed the role of the judiciary in reviewing the constitutionality of laws. However, the extent and limits of judicial review, particularly in matters of economic policy and social reform, continue to be debated.
4. Evolving Interpretation: The concept of the basic structure and the implied limitations on the amending power are not static. As society and circumstances evolve, the interpretation of these concepts may also change. Future challenges may arise in reconciling the basic structure doctrine with changing societal needs and aspirations.
5. Political and Constitutional Implications: The Kesavananda Bharati case had significant political and constitutional implications. It balanced the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution with the need to preserve the essential features of the Constitution. The interplay between the legislature, executive, and judiciary in upholding the basic structure and protecting individual rights remains an ongoing challenge in a democratic society.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was a landmark judgment that sought to strike a balance between the need for constitutional amendments to address changing societal needs and the preservation of the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Constitution. While it provided guidance on the amending power and the basic structure doctrine, the ongoing debates and future challenges highlight the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the need for continuous dialogue and deliberation in a vibrant democracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments