Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary The Keshvananda Bharati versus State of Kerela (1973) is one of the landmark judgments in Indian history.
Introduction :
On 24th April 1973, the Indian Constitution was protected, solidifying its role as the guiding principle for the country. On this day, a landmark ruling was made in the case of Kesavananda Bharati V. The State of Kerala . This case involved the largest bench in India’s history, with 13 judges, surpassing the previous record of 11 judges set in the Golaknath case.
The ruling helped clarify the balance of power among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This case is considered one of the most important in post-independence India, and it is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case or the Basic Structure Doctrine Case.
- The case of Kesavananda Bharati & Others versus State of Kerala stands as a monumental pillar in the constitutional history of India, symbolizing the essence of our democracy and the enduring spirit of Fundamental Rights in post-independent India.
- The judgements in the case was pronounced by S.M.Sikri C. J., Hegde J, Mukherjea J, Shehlat J, Grover J, Jaganmohan Reddy J, Khanna J, and was dissented by Ray J, P
- Kesavananda Bharati, the main petitioner, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act in a writ petition. He argued that the Act violated property owners’ rights and went against the principles of equality and justice. The Supreme Court heard the case with a 13-judge bench and ruled in favor of Bharati. The Court decided that Parliament cannot change the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic structure.
- This ruling is significant and has been cited in many later cases, making it one of the most important judgments in Indian legal history.alekar J, Mathew J, Beg J, Dwivedi J and Chandrachud J.
Case Facts :
Kesavananda Bharati is the leader of the Edneer Mutt religious group in Kerala. He became involved in a major legal struggle over land ownership that was vital for his group’s religious activities. Tensions arose when the Kerala government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1969. This law allowed the state to take land from individuals and organizations, including religious groups.
In response, Bharati filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, claiming the government’s actions violated his fundamental rights. He cited several constitutional provisions: Article 25, which ensures the right to practice and promote religion; Article 26, which protects the right to manage religious matters; Article 14, which guarantees equality; Article 31, related to the forced acquisition of property; and Article 19(1)(f), which ensures the freedom to own property.
Bharati argued that the amendments not only threatened his sect’s land but also undermined the principles of religious freedom and equality.
While the Supreme Court reviewed the case, the Kerala government introduced the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1971. This act increased the government’s power regarding land acquisition, prompting Bharati to seek court intervention. The case also related to recent developments in constitutional law, particularly the Supreme Court’s ruling in Golaknath vs. State of Punjab. T
hat judgment addressed whether Parliament could change the Constitution, leading to the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which confirmed Parliament’s power to make amendments. The 25th Amendment stated that if the state acquired private property, it didn’t have to pay the owner the market value, raising more concerns about property rights.
This complex legal situation led to the Supreme Court’s important ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case. The court decided that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not change its fundamental framework. This ruling set a critical precedent in Indian legal history and significantly impacted future cases, becoming an important reference point in discussions about constitutional law in India.
Issues :
- Whether the following is constitutionally valid?
- 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971
- 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972
2. Whether the Parliament can amend the constitution or not?
Argument :
By Petitioner side :
The petitioner argued that Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution and that fundamental rights are part of this structure. He stated that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited or arbitrary.
He explained that the Constitution was created to prevent future tyranny over citizens. He claimed that the 25th Amendment created this tyranny through Article 31C. If this article is applied, it could allow Parliament and State Legislatures to control the extent of citizens’ freedoms.
He referred to Justice Mudholkar’s opinion in the case of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan (1964), which said that Parliament cannot change the Constitution’s basic structure through amendments.
He sought protection for his property rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, arguing that the amendments violated this right.
Respondent :
The respondents argued that Parliament can change or even remove fundamental rights, such as the rights to religion, speech, and forming unions. They stressed that Parliament is the highest authority.
They also said that Parliament could replace a democracy with a one-party system if it wanted to, claiming its powers are unlimited. To support this, they mentioned the Re Berubari Union Case from 1960. They insisted that limiting Parliament’s authority would hinder its ability to meet social and economic needs.
Judgement :
On April 24, 1973, a case was decided by a 13-judge bench. The decision was close, with a 7:6 majority. The majority included Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, Jaganmohan Reddy, Hans Raj Khanna, and B.K. Mukherjea. The dissenters were Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, and S.N. Dwivedi. Four judges—K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and A.N. Ray—did not sign the final decision.
The majority created the “Basic Structure Doctrine.” This doctrine says that while Parliament can amend the Constitution freely, it cannot change the Constitution’s basic structure. The term “amend” does not include changes to this basic structure, and any amendments must pass a “basic structure test.” The court did not clearly define what this basic structure includes, leaving it open for future court decisions.
The court decided that the 24th Amendment was constitutional. However, parts of the 25th Amendment were invalid: the first part was legal (intra vires), but the second part was not (ultra vires). Some of the basic features recognized were the separation of powers, judicial review, constitutional supremacy, the between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy, and the independence of the judiciary.
Conclusion :
The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala was a major legal battle that lasted 68 days, starting on October 31, 1972, and ending on March 23, 1973. The research and effort put into the case were impressive, with hundreds of past cases cited. The Attorney-General created a chart comparing parts of constitutions from 71 different countries.
The judges wanted to protect the Constitution by keeping its key features intact. Their judgment was based on careful thinking and looked at many different aspects. The judges warned that giving Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution could lead to misuse, allowing governments to change important principles for their own needs. This unchecked power could alter the core spirit of the Indian Constitution.
To address this, the judges created the “Basic Structure Doctrine.” This doctrine safeguards both the rights of Parliament and the rights of citizens, striking a balance between the two. While the United States has made only 27 amendments, India has seen over a hundred since independence. However, the original spirit and ideas of the Constitution have remained unchanged.
This ruling has helped maintain the identity and essence of the Constitution. Even though the petitioner did not win fully, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case became a crucial protector of Indian democracy, ensuring the Constitution’s spirit endures.
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
More important case laws : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/pharmaceutical-society-of-great-britain-v-boots-cash-chemists-southern-ltd/
https://lawadhoctutorials.com/harvey-v-facey-case-summary/
YouTube link for legal maxims explanation : https://youtube.com/shorts/rxu5vMPa4kQ?si=6RWzHsKl7BpMvNCo
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
YouTube video lecture link for Law of Torts : https://youtu.be/fRx-i5fk3jo?si=jTZQ5pTMZI6q2uZi
Penology and Victimology Notes : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/penology-and-victimology-notes/
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala case summary
Penology and Victimology Notes PDF : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/penology-and-victimology-notes-pdf/
Education of Prisoners Notes : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/education-of-prisoners/
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala
Vocational Training for Prisoners notes : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/vocational-training-for-prisoners-in-india/
Rights and Duties of Prisoners notes :- https://lawadhoctutorials.com/rights-and-duties-of-prisoners/
Model Prison Act Notes : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/model-prisons-act-2003/
All subjects law notes : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/subject/
All subjects law notes in pdf : https://lawadhoctutorials.com/notespdf/
Law of torts lecture link on YouTube: https://youtu.be/fRx-i5fk3jo?si=QPnyduoa3IeZoI5W
Free and easy to access law notes. The law notes are available for all law subjects. Please check the below-mentioned list for complete law notes.
Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala
Click on the specific subject to view its notes.
Refer : https://lawbhoomi.com/kesavananda-bharati-v-the-state-of-kerala/