Legal Brief: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Issues Raised:

1. Scope of Parliament’s Amending Power: Does the Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, or is there any limitation?

2. Doctrine of Basic Structure: Whether there is any “basic structure” of the Constitution that cannot be amended even by a constitutional amendment.

3. Validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments: These amendments were challenged for curtailing the fundamental rights and empowering the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Argument (Kesavananda Bharati):

   • The petitioner argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not absolute and that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution could not be altered or destroyed by Parliament.
   • It was contended that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not in a way that destroyed its “basic structure” or essential features.

2. Respondent’s Argument (State of Kerala & Union of India):

   • The government argued that Article 368 of the Constitution conferred absolute power upon Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
   • It was contended that there were no inherent limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on April 24, 1973, with a 7:6 majority. The Court upheld the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, but it introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine” as a limitation on that power.

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power cannot be used to alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution. What constitutes the “basic structure” was not exhaustively defined but includes elements like:
   • Supremacy of the Constitution
   • Republican and democratic form of government
   • Secularism
   • Separation of powers
   • Federalism
   • Judicial review
2. Validity of the Amendments:
   • The 24th Amendment, which gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, was upheld as valid.
   • The 25th Amendment, which allowed Parliament to limit compensation for acquisition of property, was upheld, but the amendment’s clause that barred judicial review was struck down.

This judgment essentially saved the fundamental rights from being completely abrogated while maintaining a balance between Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the protection of its core principles.

Significance of the Case:

1. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Kesavananda Bharati judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. It limits the amending power of Parliament and ensures that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed.

2. Judicial Review: The judgment reinforced the power of the judiciary to review and strike down amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution. This ensures that the Supreme Court remains the guardian of the Constitution.

3. Balance of Power: The case marked a crucial moment in the balance between the Parliament’s sovereignty and the Supreme Court’s role as a protector of the Constitution.

4. Impact on Future Amendments: Several future constitutional amendments were scrutinized under the lens of the Basic Structure Doctrine, including Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and the Minerva Mills case (1980), both of which upheld and elaborated on the basic structure doctrine.

Conclusion:

The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most important constitutional judgments in Indian legal history. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court struck a balance between the amending power of Parliament and the inviolability of the Constitution’s core principles. This judgment continues to safeguard the essential features of India’s Constitution and serves as a reminder that the power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.