Kesavananda Bharati Case: Shaping the 'Basic Structure' Doctrine.

Introduction

A landmark case in Indian constitutional history is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). It is famous for creating the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The case took place during a time of intense political and legal discussion, with the goal of striking a balance between fundamental rights and parliamentary supremacy at the forefront. This landmark ruling made sure that the Constitution's fundamental elements—democracy, the rule of law, and citizen rights—would remain unaltered even if it were amended.

The Facts of the Kesavananda Bharati Case

A conflict between the state's authority to implement land reform laws and an institution's religious freedoms led to the development of the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case. The issue concerns Kesavananda Bharati, a religious figure who was in charge of Kerala's Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious organization.

1. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969

The Kerala government passed the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, in an effort to eliminate land inequality by limiting land holdings and redistributing agricultural land to the landless. This law intended to address the widespread issue of land concentration in the hands of a few by imposing land ceiling restrictions on property ownership.

The Act included a clause allowing the state government to acquire and redistribute land owned by religious institutions, notably the Edneer Mutt, which was led by Kesavananda Bharati. As a result, the new law threatened the institution's property, especially its land holdings. Kesavananda Bharati submitted a suit challenging the validity of the land reform law, claiming that it interfered with the management and rights of religious institution.

2. The Constitutional Challenge

· Kesavananda Bharati's appeal addressed not just the protection of Edneer Mutt's land, but also broader constitutional issues. His legal team claimed that the Kerala Land Reforms Act infringed his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, specifically:

Article 25: The liberty to engage in religious activities and oversee the religious matter.
Article 26: The liberty to manage religious affairs and have liberty to own property for religious purposes.
Article 31: The right to property, this protected an individual’s property from state encroachment.

The case also called into question whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which limited the Mutt's capacity to hold property, violated these fundamental rights. The challenge also raised the question of whether the Indian Parliament had the authority to modify the Constitution in a way that would affect fundamental rights and the Constitution's basic framework.

3. The Constitutional Amendments and their Context

The timing of the lawsuit was crucial. Several substantial constitutional reforms had recently been adopted, and these would become central to the dispute:

• The 24th Amendment (1971) gave Parliament the power to change the Constitution, including fundamental rights, overriding prior Supreme Court decisions. It included a clause that affirmed Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution as long as it did not change its "basic structure."
• The 25th Amendment (1971) restricted courts' ability to review property-related laws, particularly during land reforms.
• The 29th Amendment (1972) included the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule, providing immunity from judicial review. By placing the statute in the Ninth Schedule, the administration attempted to shield it from being overturned by the courts.

Kesavananda Bharati opposed these reforms, particularly the extension of legislative power to amend the Constitution, claiming that they would erode the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution.

4. The Question Before the Court

Whether Parliament may freely amend the Constitution, including its fundamental rights, was the main question on the Supreme Court's agenda. In particular, it questioned whether Parliament had limited authority to change or amend the Constitution, especially when it came to its fundamental interpretation. In essence, Kesavananda Bharati and his legal team contended that any constitutional amendment could not alter or remove the Constitution's essential rights or basic structure because doing so would disrupt the Constitution's very character. The Kerala administration, on the other hand, supported its position, claiming that the amendment power under Article 368 permitted Parliament to make modifications without restriction.

5. Court’s Role and the Larger Implications

The case went beyond the scope of Kerala's land reform efforts. It became an important topic of judicial review on the balance of power between Parliament and the court. The case also raised the question of whether the judiciary might limit Parliament's ability to change the Constitution, which had never been established firmly previously.
The 13-judge panel constituted to hear this case recognized the significance of the issues posed. This case was intended to change the relationship between India's Constitution, legislature, and court.

Judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati Case

A 13-judge panel, the largest in Indian history at the time, rendered the ruling in this case. During the 68-day hearing, the case covered complex constitutional topics like judicial review, amending power, and legislative autonomy.

1. The Judgment of Majority (7-6)
By a majority of 7–6, the Supreme Court decided that Article 368 gives Parliament the power to change the Constitution. But this power was not unrestricted. The Court came to the conclusion that although Parliament might change any part of the Constitution, it could not alter the core components or structure of the document.

1. Power to Amend the Constitution:

The Court upheld Parliament's authority under Article 368 to amend the Constitution. But this authority was not unrestricted.
The majority contended that the Constitution's amendment power was essential for Parliament to adapt to evolving conditions.

2. The Concept of the 'Basic Structure':

The judgment's establishment of the "Basic Structure Doctrine" was its most important component.
In his majority ruling, Chief Justice Sikri said that the Indian Constitution reflected the will of the people and was more than just a legal document. Although Parliament may amend the Constitution, he said, it could not alter its essential principles.
The Court proposed several characteristics that constitute the fundamental tenets of the Constitution, but it did not provide an full definition of the "basic structure." These comprised:

Supremacy of the Constitution
Democracy
Republican form of government
Separation of powers
Federalism
Judicial review
Fundamental rights
Rule of law
Secularism

The Court emphasized that any amendment that damaged these core principles would be unconstitutional.

3. Limitations on Parliament’s Power:

Although Parliament may change the majority of the Constitution's provisions, it was unable to change its fundamental framework. This restriction served as protection against any unconstitutional changes that would compromise the fundamental principles and structure of the Indian Constitution.

The ruling reiterated that changes cannot be made to the fundamental framework. The fundamental characteristics that are essential to the identity of the Constitution cannot even be changed by Parliament.

4. Immunizing Amendments and the Ninth Schedule:

The Court ruled in the instance of laws added to the Ninth Schedule (which shielded some laws from judicial review) that although Parliament may add laws to the Ninth Schedule, it cannot do so if such laws conflicted with the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which was listed in the Ninth Schedule. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of the act, acknowledging that land reforms were a justifiable state interest. It also made clear that any upcoming changes that deviate from the fundamental framework would be reviewed by the courts.

5. The Minority Judgment (6-7)

The minority opinion, written by Justices H.R. Khanna, M. H. Beg, and K.K. Mathew, disagreed with the majority judgment and contended that Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.

1. No Limitations on the Amending Power:

o The minority justices argued that the Constitution did not contain any provision that could limit Parliament's power to amend it. They held that the Constitution's amending power under Article 368 was sovereign and absolute, meaning that Parliament could alter any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.

2. Parliament’s Sovereignty:

o The minority judges rejected the idea of a basic structure and argued that Parliament, as the representative body of the people, had the right to amend any part of the Constitution. They viewed Parliament as the supreme body in the constitutional framework.

3. No Judicial Review of Amendments:

The minority justices believed that Parliament's revisions were not amenable to judicial review. They argued that the judiciary had no authority to interfere with changes, even if they impacted fundamental rights or other key aspects of the Constitution.

6. The Concept of Basic Structure

The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in this decision, has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The Court stated unequivocally that routine modifications cannot change the fundamental ideas that underpin the Constitution.
The basic framework is a flexible idea that evolves as the Constitution is interpreted. The Court identified several features as part of the basic framework, including:

Republican form of government (India must remain a democracy with elected representatives)
Separation of powers (Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive should remain separate)
Judicial review (The courts should have the power to review laws to ensure their constitutionality)
Secularism (India must remain neutral to all religions)
Federalism (The division of powers between the central government and state governments)
Democracy (The principle of representative government)

While the Court did not provide a definitive list, these principles were treated as fundamental to the Constitution and therefore immune from amendments that would alter or destroy them.

7. The Outcome of the Case

The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati resulted in the following outcomes:

1. Kerala Land Reforms Act:
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which had been challenged by Kesavananda Bharati, as it was placed in the Ninth Schedule and did not violate the basic structure. The Court ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they affect the basic structure.

2. Limitations on Amendments:
The Court determined that Parliament's ability to modify the Constitution is not absolute. Although Parliament could amend most articles, it could not change or eliminate the Constitution's core elements, indicating a considerable constraint on its authority.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The Kesavananda Bharati decision was a watershed moment that drastically limited Parliament's ability to enact constitutional revisions. The creation of the basic structure concept ensured that the Constitution's main values were protected, regardless of political changes. This decision supported the idea that the Constitution is a living document, but its fundamental ideas must be preserved in order to maintain the nation's democratic structure.
This judgment also paved the way for additional judicial scrutiny in future cases when the limitations of constitutional modifications were questioned, ensuring that India's democracy is protected by an independent court.

Article 15 of the indian constitution

Article 16 of the indian constitution

Article 14 of the indian constitution

What is constitution its importance and features

Kesavananda Bharati Case

Doctrine of basic structure

what is bill of right and fundamental rights