FACTS
Swami Sri HH Sri Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of its property under two State Land Reform Acts. A petition was filed under Article 26, which guarantees the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.
During the pendency of the case, constitutional amendments were made in 1971-72, adding the following Acts to the Ninth Schedule:
- The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969)
- The Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971)
The petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge these constitutional amendments, arguing that they violated fundamental rights.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
- What is the extent of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution, particularly in light of Article 13(2), which prohibits laws that abridge fundamental rights?
- Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
- Does Parliament have the power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution?
HELD
The Supreme Court, in a landmark 7-6 decision, reviewed the precedent set in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) and examined the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments.
- Overruling of Golaknath Case: The Court held that Parliament does have the power to amend fundamental rights, overruling the earlier decision in Golaknath that had placed fundamental rights beyond Parliament’s amending power.
- Validity of the 24th Amendment: The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, which explicitly gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution.
- Amending Power under Article 368: The Court held that Article 368, as amended, was valid. However, it did not confer unlimited power to alter the basic structure or essential framework of the Constitution.
- Basic Structure Doctrine Introduced: The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.
- Invalidity of Article 31C Amendment: The amendment of Article 31C, which sought to give unlimited power to Parliament to override fundamental rights, was held invalid.
JUDICIAL OBSERVATIONS
H.R. Khanna, J.:
“The Constitution is not a gate but a road. Beneath the drafting of a Constitution is the awareness that things do not stand still but move on, that life of a progressive nation, as of an individual, is not static and stagnant but dynamic and dashful. A Constitution must therefore contain ample provision for experiment and trial in the task of administration.”
S.M. Sikri, C.J.:
“Every provision of the Constitution can be amended provided that in the result, the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remain the same.”
He further elaborated that the Basic Structure includes:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and Democratic form of Government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Dignity and freedom of the individual
These elements, being the foundation of the Constitution, cannot be destroyed by any amendment.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The Kesavananda Bharati case is regarded as the most significant ruling in Indian constitutional history. It:
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, restricting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- Ensured that fundamental rights remain protected while allowing reasonable constitutional amendments.
- Created a balance between Parliamentary supremacy and constitutional integrity.
This judgment remains the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, preventing any authoritarian misuse of legislative power to undermine the foundational principles of the Constitution.
