Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Judgment Summary

Years ago, the largest bench of the Supreme Court was constituted to decide crucial legal questions involving a Hindu monastery Edneer Mutt, represented by a Hindu monk. His name became the identity of the constitutional landmark in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The full title of the case is His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others vs State of Kerala and another (1973 CaseBase(SC) 111). This article dives deeper into the landmark decision which gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine. 

Pre-Kesavananda Bharati Law 

Prior to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was a subject of intense judicial debate. Initially, in Sri Sankari Prasad Singhdeo v. Union of India (1951 CaseBase(SC) 11) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964 CaseBase(SC) 28), the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend was plenary and extended to all parts of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. 

However, in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967 CaseBase(SC) 162), a larger bench reversed this position, holding that Fundamental Rights were beyond the amending power of Parliament and could not be abridged or taken away. This led to a constitutional impasse, as Parliament felt its ability to implement socio-economic reforms was curtailed. 

In response to Golaknath, Parliament enacted several amendments, including the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts. These amendments sought to restore Parliament's supremacy in amending the Constitution and to overcome the restrictions imposed by the Golaknath judgment. The validity of these amendments, particularly the 24th and 25th Amendments, was challenged in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 CaseBase(SC) 111). 

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Summary 

The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case established the "Basic Structure Doctrine". It was held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution as per Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental identity or essential features. The basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati judgment limits the legislative power to ensure preservation of the Constitution's core values. 

By a narrow majority of 7:6, the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute. While Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot use this power arbitrarily to alter, abrogate, or destroy the "basic structure" or "essential features" of the Constitution. This judgment partially overruled Golaknath by restoring Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, but simultaneously limited this power by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine. 

Basic Structure Doctrine 

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment synthesized the legal principle that the Indian Constitution, while flexible enough to be amended, possesses an inviolable "Basic Structure" that cannot be altered or destroyed by Parliament through its amending power under Article 368. This doctrine ensures the continuity and fundamental identity of the Constitution, acting as a safeguard against potential legislative overreach and protecting the core values and principles upon which the Republic is founded. It established that the power to amend is not equivalent to the power to rewrite or abrogate the Constitution entirely. 

Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 

The Court did not strike down the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Instead, a majority upheld the validity of the 29th Constitutional Amendment, which had inserted the 1969 and 1971 Kerala Land Reforms Amendment into the Ninth Schedule. By being placed in the Ninth Schedule, these Acts received the protection of Article 31B against challenges based on violations of fundamental rights. 

Validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment 

The Court upheld the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 as valid. It held that the amendment, which clarified that Parliament exercises constituent power under Article 368 and that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments, did no more than declare the correct legal position. Parliament could not, even after the amendment, abrogate or authorize the taking away of fundamental rights, but a law which merely abridged a right while remaining within the limits of the basic structure would no longer be liable to be struck down merely on the ground of abridgement. 

Validity of Section 2 of the 25th Constitutional Amendment 

The Court upheld Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, which substituted the word "amount" for "compensation" in Article 31(2), as valid, subject to the interpretation placed on it. The Court held that while courts had no power to question a law under Article 31(2) on the ground that the amount fixed for compulsory acquisition was not adequate, courts retained the power to question such a law if the amount fixed was illusory, if the principles stated for determining the amount were wholly irrelevant, if the power of compulsory acquisition was exercised for a collateral purpose, if the law offended constitutional safeguards, or if the law was in the nature of a fraud on the Constitution. 

Validity of Section 3 of the 25th Amendment (Article 31C) 

The Court, by a majority, upheld Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act,1971, which introduced Article 31C. However, the majority held that the second part of Article31C, which declared that no law containing a declaration that it was for giving effect to Article39(b) or (c) policy could be called in question on the ground that it did not give effect to that policy did not exclude the court's jurisdiction to examine whether the law in fact bore a direct and reasonable nexus to the directive principles in Article 39(b) or (c). A law would receive the protection of Article 31C only if such a nexus existed. Laws bearing no relationship to the objective stated in Article 39(b) and (c) could not claim immunity under Article 31C by the mere use of a declaration. 

Validity of the Constitution 29th Amendment 

The Court upheld the Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972 as valid. The two Kerala Acts: Act 35 of 1969 and Act 25 of 1971, which were included in the 9th Schedule, were entitled to the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution. 

Judicial Reasoning in Kesavananda Bharati Case 

The 13-judge bench delivered eleven separate judgments, which led to the landmark decision in Kesavananda Bharati case. The core of the decision revolved around the interpretation of Article 368 and the extent of Parliament's constituent power. 

• Majority View (7 judges): The majority, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, propounded the "Basic Structure Doctrine." They reasoned that the power to amend is not a power to destroy. While Parliament has wide constituent power, it is subject to inherent limitations. The Constitution, being a fundamental document, has certain essential features that form its basic structure, which cannot be abrogated even by an amendment. The Kesavananda Bharati Bench identified several features as potentially forming part of the basic structure, including:
• 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
• Unity and integrity of the nation
• Judicial review
• Fundamental Rights (though they can be amended, their essential features cannot be destroyed)  

This view emphasized the distinction between "amendment" and "revision" or "abrogation," asserting that Article 368 only grants the power of amendment. 

• Minority View (6 judges): The minority judges, including Justice A.N. Ray, argued for the plenary and absolute nature of Parliament's amending power. They contended that Article 368 conferred unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, without any implied limitations. They rejected the concept of a "basic structure" as vague, undemocratic, and an unwarranted judicial encroachment into the legislative domain. They believed that the power to amend included the power to make fundamental changes to the Constitution, reflecting the will of the people. 

The Impact

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala remains a pivotal judgment in Indian constitutional law, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine as a fundamental limitation on Parliament's amending power. This doctrine has profoundly shaped the trajectory of constitutional governance in India, ensuring that the foundational principles and essential features of the Constitution are preserved against any attempts to undermine them. 

FAQs on Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 

Question: How many Judges decided Kesavananda Bharati Case? 

Answer: The Kesavananda Bharati judgment was delivered by the largest bench of the Supreme Court of India in the Indian history. There were 13 Supreme Court Judges on the dais, to decide a crucial question which demarcated the constitution law regarding Parliamentary authority. The Bench included Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, Justice J. M. Shelat, Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice A. N. Grover, Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice D. G. Palekar, Justice H. R. Khanna, Justice K. K. Mathew, Justice M. H. Beg, Justice S. N. Dwivedi, Justice A. K. Mukherjea, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, and Justice A. N. Ray. 

Question: What was the main dispute in Kesavananda Bharati case? 

Answer: The case can be understood to have sprouted through a land dispute. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Matha in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government's Land Reform Act, which sought to take over the monastery's excess land, arguing it violated his fundamental right to manage a religious property. 

The main question ultimately decided by the 13-Judge Bench was about the extent of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and whether it had the authority to alter or destroy the Constitution's foundational principles. 

Question: Did Kesavananda Bharati get his land back? 

Answer: Even if the case proved to be a landmark decision in the history of constitutional law in India, Kesavananda Bharati lost the battle. The Court ultimately upheld the Kerala Land Reforms Act, while the Mutt lost its excess property to the State. 

Question: Why is it said that Kesavananda Bharati "lost" his own case? 

Answer: Although the judgment created the Basic Structure Doctrine and limited Parliament's amending power, Kesavananda Bharati did not obtain the relief he sought against the Kerala land reform laws. The challenged Kerala amendments remained valid and protected. This is why legal scholars often note that the petitioner "won the constitutional battle but lost his personal case." 

Question: What is the difference between Golaknath case and Kesavananda Bharati case? 

Answer: The fundamental difference between the two landmark Supreme Court judgments lies in how they limit the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court in IC Golaknath Judgment (1967 CaseBase(SC) 162) ruled that Parliament cannot alter or abridge Fundamental Rights at all, while Kesavananda Bharati allowed Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights, provided it does not violate the Constitution's Basic Structure.