Podcast

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati was chief of a religious sect in Kerala. The sect had certain lands acquired under its name. The petitioner had challenged the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963. But, during the pendency of the petition the Kerala Act was amended in 1971 and was placed in the 9th Schedule as per 29th Amendment Act.  After the unprecedented judgment of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Indira Gandhi government passed a series of amendments to overrule what was decided in the verdict.  So, the petitioner was permitted to challenge the validity of 24th , 25th and 29th  amendment to the Constitution. The case pending before the 5-judge bench was transferred to a 13 judge bench at a time when there was only 15 judges in the Supreme Court. The case was heard by the bench from November 1972 to April 1973. On behalf of the Union of India, it was contended that amending power was unlimited and short of repeal of the constitution, all changes were permissible. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that the amending power was wide but not unlimited. It was also argued that Article 368 cannot destroy the “basic features” of the constitution. 

Issue: what was the extent of amending power conferred by Article 368 of the Constitution and the validity of the 24th  and 25th Constitutional amendments.

Judgment: The court by a majority of 7:6 held that Parliament could amend any and every provision of the constitution subject to condition that such amendment does not violate Basic Structure of the constitution. The court upheld entire 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971 whereas it found 1st part of 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972 intra vires & 2nd part of the act ultra vires. It was held that the second part of the 25th amendment namely, “no such law, containing the declaration that it is for giving effect to  such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy” is invalid on the ground that it effects the fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 19 and 31.

In addition, the court found the answer to the question left unanswered in Golaknath regarding the extent of amending power conferred on the parliament. The court propounded the Doctrine Of Basic Structure which implies  that though Parliament has the prerogative to amend the entire Constitution, the power is subject to the condition that they cannot in any manner interfere with the features so fundamental to this Constitution that without them it would be spiritless.

Each of the judges laid out separately what he thought were the basic or essential features of the constitution. It consisted of features such as supremacy of the constitution, federalism, secularism, separation of powers etc. Although each one of them enumerated certain essentials of basic structure, they also made it clear that they were only illustrative and not exhaustive. This Doctrine basically strengthened constitutionalism in the country. Emergency experience had highlighted that elected authorities can become autocratic if there aren’t necessary checks on them. Even today, there isn’t any case as celebrated as this one.