Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973

Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Kesavananda Bharati Case is an important development in India’s constitutional history and also influenced how the Indian Consitution was shaped and interpreted, as well as used. This case which is now known as Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others vs State of Kerala & Another was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. The case largely revolved around a basic question of how much Parliament could amend the Constitution, especially as regards its ‘basic structure’.

Let us learn more about the Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973!

Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973

Overview of Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973

Here’s an overview table on the Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala (1973):

Aspect	Description
Case Name	Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala and Others
Year	1973
Court	Supreme Court of India
Petitioner	Kesavananda Bharati, a spiritual leader
Respondent	State of Kerala and Others
Issue	Constitutional validity of amendments to the Indian Constitution, particularly regarding limitations on amendment power
Legal Question	Whether there are any limitations on the amending power of the Indian Parliament?
Verdict	Landmark judgment establishing the “Basic Structure Doctrine” of the Indian Constitution
Basic Structure Doctrine	Concept that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments
Significance	Established the supremacy of the Constitution and limited the amending power of the Parliament
Impact	Ensured the protection of individual rights and the balance of power between the Legislature and Judiciary

What was Kesavananda Bharati Case?

The Kesavananda Bharati case, whose formal name is Kesavanada Bharti Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., is a leading case in India by the Supreme Court. This case lasted for 68 days from October 31, of the year to March23 in theyear. This judgment held on the 24 th of April, 1973 had wide ramifications for Indian constitutional law.

The central issue of the Kesavananda Bharati case was an attack on constitutional validity to 24th Amendment Act, 1971 and also 25 th amendment act. These amendments were passed by the Parliament to plug on the powers of both courts especially in regards to parliamentary authority under article 368.

The main issue in the case was whether Parliament had limitless powers to amend Article 368 of the Constitution or if there existed embedded limitations on that power. The petitioner supported his argument by saying that there was a ‘basic structure’ of the constitution, which could not be amended and any amendment violating this basic principle would amount to unconstitutionality.

Contentions of the Petitioners

The arguments of the petitioners on this case meant that it was centred at challenging constitutionality for 24 Amendment Act, 1971 and also 25 Amendment Act, both guided in intervening year with motif to remit Parliament’s chances. The petitioners, including Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged the unrestricted power of Indian Parliament to amend its Constitution through Article 368.

Here are some of the key contentions made by the petitioners:

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The petitioners introduced the idea of “Basic Structure” in terms to the Constitution. They stated that certain fundamental characteristics and norms constitute the essence of constitutionality. The petitioners state that these items cannot be amended or modified by the Parliament’s making power.
2. Implied Limitations on Amending Power: The petitioners argued that although parliament was empowered by Article 368 to amend the constitution, there were implied limitations on this power. They claimed that the power to amend is not encompassed with the ability to destroy or void of abrogating by Constitution’s fundamental character
3. Preservation of Fundamental Rights: To protect the fundamental rights, it was stated that any amendment which would infringe upon or take away these basic rights is against the constitution. They contended that fundamental rights formed the core of Constitution’s basic structure.
4. Judicial Review: They advocated for the role of judiciary in reviewing constitutional amendments. They argued that the judiciary could decide if an amendment was contrary to Constitution’s basic structure and, in case it did so, considered unconstitutional.
5. Balance of Powers: The petitioners emphasized the need to preserve a separation of power between three major branches—the legislature, executive and judiciary. They held that any move by the Parliament to centralize all-powerful powers, especially at the cost of judicial institutions would jeopardize constitutional equilibrium.
6. Amendments Violating Federal Structure: The petitioners argued that certain amendments, in particular the ones which changed federal structure of the Constitution could be considered to be unconstitutional. They contended the federal character of its constitution was integral to it’s basic framework.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents in the Kesavananda Bharati case were granted by State of Kerala and Union of India. The respondents also upheld the validity of 24th Amendment Act, 197I and that under Section.

Their key contentions included:

1. Parliament’s Plenary Power: The respondents submitted that under Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament is vested with a plenary power to amend the constitution.They argued that the Constituent assembly deliberately adopted a broad form of Article 368 in order to give overriding powers to Parliament when amending any part of Constitution.
2. No Inherent Limitations: According to the respondents, there were no limits of inherent or implied power on Parliament. They contended that amendment power was unqualified and nothing could be cast out of the Constitution including its basic feature.
3. Absence of Judicial Review: The respondents claimed that the jurisdiction of judicial review did not cover constitutional amendments. They contended that once an amendment was duly enacted by the Parliament, it became a part of the Constitution and judiciary could have no power to annul or overrule such new developments.
4. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: The respondents, on their part mentioned the principle of prospective overruling whereby even if a decision is made by which certain amendments are declared null and void it should be applicable into this future cases only; as such past enacted provisions can remain valid.
5. Parliament’s Role in Constitutional Evolution: Respondents had the parliament as it turned, head is the supreme legislature in Kenya. They contended that, because the Parliament was representative of individuals, it had a mandate to modify Constitutions in line with changing times and emerging needs.
6. Constitution as a Living Document: The respondents argued that the Constitution has to be viewed as a dynamic body of law capable of change. They litigated that the constitution was dynamic so it could be amended to address challenges and demands at a given time.

Analysis of the case

The Kesavananda Bharati case is of historical significance in the chronology of Indian constitutional law and has had far reaching repercussions for both interpretation as well as developmental perspectives to be applied toward the Constitution.

Here is an analysis of the key aspects and significance of the case:

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: Perhaps, the biggest contribution made by Kesavananda Bharati case is in recognition and approval of basic structure doctrine. The court concluded that although Parliament may change in the constitution, it cannot do so to alter or abolish its fundamental structure
2. Implied Limitations on Amending Power: The judgment noted that there are inherent limitations to the amending nature of Parliament. It was set out that the amending power does not encompass abrogation of the Constitution or altering its basic features.
3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: The case upheld the power of judicature to nullify constitutional amendments against their reaction with basic structure.
4. Preservation of Fundamental Rights: The importance of maintaining basic rights as an aspect of the constitutional framework was further founded in this judgment. Under judicial review, amendments that deprive fundamental rights are invalidated.
5. Balance of Powers: This case brought out the importance of having a balance between all three branches of government. It stopped the accumulation of too much power in any one branch – well certainly at the expense of judiciary.
6. Federal Structure of the Constitution: In the judgment, judiciary recognized federal structure as a part of basic structure. This recognition has meaning in determining the balance between central and state government powers, thus safeguarding federal features of Indian constitution.
7. Prospective Overruling: The respondents’ concept of prospective overruling was not accepted entirely.

Kesavananda Bharathi and others (Petitioner) vs. State of Kerala (Respondent)

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is an important judgment in the Indian constitutional history. This was determined by the Supreme Court of India in 1973 and is commonly known as Basic Structure Doctrine case.

The case revolved around 24th Amendment to the Constitution of India, which intended to curtail Parliament power in amending constitutions. The 42nd Amendment was challenged by Kesavananda Bharti who was the head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala on ground that it violated basic structure doctrine.

In a historic ruling, the supreme court ruled that while parliament had legislative powers, this power was not absolute. The court ruled that there were some fundamental elements of the Constitution which could not be altered or destroyed by amendments. This was meant to avoid any mischievous modification that would hurt the philosophical basis and morality contained in this arrangement ratified by the constitution.While the court did not specify what falls under this ‘basic structure,’ it set out a few principles such as that of supremacy of constitution; republican and democratic form Of government secularism federalism and separation but powers. These principles were considered inviolable.

1. Indubitably, the most significant judgment of post-independent India and popularly known as Fundamental Rights case is Kesavananda Bharati & others Versus State of Kerala.
2. In this case, the judgment was pronounced by Supreme Court Judges S.M.Mocky J Chief Justice of India HegdeJ Mukherjea and ShehlatJ GroverPerrotessing Doctor ReddyKinkhanneand MathewPalekar BegDvidiedi Chandrachud Iranian Linda Ashley Women Kangaroo Cotton Printe
3. It is aptly said that the judgment in present case put an end to clash between executive and judiciary through which democratic system was saved. The final pronouncement in the case was a brutal legal battle between two constitutional giants and eminent jurists N. A Palkhivala (for Petitioners) H M Seervai for State of Kerala). After 68 long days of hearing in the case, a voluminous judgment bound was pronounced on

Brief Facts

The chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt was Kesavananda Bharati; it is one of the monastic religious institutions in Kasaragod district, Kerala. Bharati had some property in the Mutt which was his. With the passing of Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969 by Kerala state government. According to this Act, the government could take some of the Mutt lands.In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under:

Even as the petition moved under consideration of the court, Kerala state government came up with another act –Law-the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971.

The contentions made by the petitioners unveiled that various amendments passed to counteract or nullify the effects of Golaknath v State of Punjab were valid. In specific, three constitutional amendments were challenged by the petitioners – 24th Amendment; 25th

Issues before the Court

Are the statements below constitutional?

• 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
• 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972

Kesavananda Bharati Case – Judgement

The landmark judgement was delivered on 24th April 1973 by a razor-thin majority of 7: Six among which so many were the case where the majority held that any provisions of Indian Constitution could be amended by Parliament in order to meet its socio-economic obligations as assured to citizens according with Preamble, if such an alteration does not abuse constitution’s fundamental structure. The dissenting minority was cautious in granting unlimited amending power to Parliament.

The court upheld that the 24th Constitutional Amendment was completely valid. However, it held the first clause of the 25th Constitutional Amendment to be intra vires and second part thereof ultra.The court found that although Parliament could seek to amend the Constitution through Article 368, this power was not limitless. The court laid down the principle that there was a structural framework of Constitution, which could not be changed or demolished by alterations.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The basic structure doctrine can be summarized as such that Parliament has unlimited powers to change the features of Constitution provided the alterations do not go against its substance. There was no reference to the basic structure of Constitution; this became a matter left for judicial interpretation. This was later enacted in several other judgements of the SC.

The court argued that the word ‘amend’ in Article 368 is not meant to include modifications which can change Constitutions basic structure. If the Parliament seeks to amend anything regarding a constitutional provision, that would require The ‘basic structure’ test.

Conclusion

At page supra is the illustration of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala that had lasted for 68 days, begining from October 31st to March 23rd February in year The effort and study that had been applied to the production of this case was incredible. Hundreds of cases had already been cited and the then Attorney-General left a comparative chart analysing how constitutions in 71 different countries applied.

FAQs: Kesavananda Bharati Case

What is the importance of Kesavananda Bharati Case?

The “Basic Structure Doctrine” was established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case, which reduced Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution of India.

At what point did the Kesavananda Bharati Case judgment take place?

The judgment was passed on 24 th April,1973.

Who was Kesavananda Bharati and what position did he occupy in the case?

Kesavananda Bharati was a petitioner who also headed the Hindu matha (monastic institution) challenging constitutional amendments.

What does the Basic Structure Doctrine mean as sustained by Kesavananda Bharati Case?

The doctrine holds that the Indian Constitution has certain characteristics which cannot be changed through amendments.

In the Kesavananda Bharati Case, how many judges comprised of the majority opinion?

The majority opinion was a 7-6 verdict on an expanded bench of judges.

How did the Kesavananda Bharati Case affect judicial review in India?

The case reinforced the judiciary’s role as a defender of constitution and gave breadth to scope of amendment review in India.

Did the Kesavananda Bharati Case set out what constitutes ‘Basic Structure’?

The case did not enumerate the elements of the “Basic Structure” so that it will have room for interpretation in subsequent cases.