Case of Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

The Kesavananda Bharti case

The Kesavananda Bharti case is one of the most crucial cases in India, especially for law students. The significance lies in the landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court during this case.

This case holds the record as the longest-running case in the Supreme Court, spanning 68 days. Remarkably, more than 100 cases were set aside to prioritize this case. To comprehend the implications, a comparison was made with the constitutions of over 70 countries.

The judgment delivered in this case was extensive, totaling 703 pages. In essence, the Kesavananda Bharti case stands out as one of the pivotal legal cases in India.

Image Source: wikimedia.org

Case of Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

After gaining independence, all Indian states began addressing social and economic issues within their territories.

Upon the enactment of the Indian Constitution in 1950, citizens were made aware of their fundamental right to equality. During this time, there was a concentration of resources and means of production among a select few, leading the state governments to recognize the need for a change.

The state government of Kerala, under the leadership of the Chief Minister, enacted the Kerala Land Reforms Act in 1963 to improve the social and economic situation. This Land Reform Act curtailed the property rights.

Utilizing this law, the Chief Minister of Kerala took control of the land belonging to Edneer Math in the Kasargod district. This action adversely affected the income of the monastery, leading to difficulties in managing its affairs. In response, the head of Edneer Math, Shri Kesavanand Bharti, challenged the Land Reform Act in court.

Nana Bhai Pal, a prominent lawyer, represented Kesavanand Bharti in the Supreme Court. The Land Reform Act restricted the right to property, a fundamental right of citizens. In his writ filed in March 1970, Kesavanand Bharti argued that the Land Reform Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 19(f), Article 25, and Article 26. He contended that ownership of any land is a fundamental right of every citizen.

During this period, significant cases were being heard in the Supreme Court, including the Bank Nationalization Case (1970), the Madhav Rao Scindia Case (1971), and the Golaknath Case (1967). Notably, these cases involved a conflict between two crucial powers in India—the Parliament and the judiciary.

The Parliament claimed unlimited powers under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution to amend any law, but the Supreme Court disagreed. When the Golaknath vs. State of Punjab case reached the Supreme Court, a pivotal question emerged—whether the Parliament had unrestricted powers to amend any law.

The Supreme Court answered decisively, stating that the Parliament did not possess unlimited powers for arbitrary amendments. In response to these restrictions, the Parliament introduced the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendment laws to regain its powers.

24th, 25th, and 29th Amendment laws

These amendment laws played a crucial role, and it's essential to understand their specifics:

24th Amendment Act: This Act granted Parliament the authority to amend fundamental rights and make changes to any law.

25th Amendment Act: This Act allowed the curtailment of property rights. Moreover, the government gained the power to acquire private property for public use, with compensation determined by Parliament rather than the court.

29th Amendment Act: Under this Act, the Land Reforms Act was added to the 9th Schedule. When a law is placed in the 9th Schedule, it becomes immune to questioning, and courts cannot review it.

With the Land Reforms Act included in the 9th Schedule, it became shielded from scrutiny. In the Keshavananda Bharti case, along with the Land Reforms Act, these three amendment laws were challenged in court.

While several questions arose during this case, the primary inquiries were:

• Does Parliament possess the authority to amend fundamental rights?
• If yes, to what extent can Parliament modify fundamental rights?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that contrary to the belief that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution grants unlimited powers to Parliament, it, in fact, confers limited powers. This implies that Parliament cannot amend any law arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the 24th and 25th Amendment Acts, introducing Article 31(c), curtailed the fundamental rights of citizens. This, according to the petitioner, constitutes an erroneous and unjust law.

Defense Arguments

The defense argued that Parliament possesses unrestricted powers to amend any law, emphasizing the state's responsibility to enhance its social and economic conditions. They contended that imposing constraints on Parliament's powers would hinder its ability to adapt laws to evolving circumstances.

Furthermore, the defense asserted that Parliament has the authority to impose restrictions on certain fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, the right to form associations and freedom of religion.

Judgment

In this landmark case, a record-breaking bench of 13 judges deliberated, delivering a majority verdict of 7:6 encapsulated in a 713-page judgment.

The Supreme Court, overturning its previous stance in the Golaknath vs. State of Punjab case, ruled that Parliament does have the authority to amend fundamental rights. It deemed the 24th Amendment of Parliament as valid and asserted that, according to Article 368, Parliament holds the complete power to amend any constitutional law.

Addressing the second question—regarding the limits of Parliament's powers—the Supreme Court acknowledged that while Parliament possesses unlimited authority to amend laws, it must exercise this power without infringing upon the basic features of the Constitution. This marked the inception of the 'Basic Structure Principle' (Basic Structure Doctrine).

Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the 25th and 29th Amendment laws, stating that any law included in the 9th Schedule violating the Basic Structure Doctrine requires judicial review.

Conclusion

On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment introducing the basic structure doctrine for the first time. This case holds significance as the Supreme Court, with ingenuity and sagacity, passed a judgment that granted extensive powers to Parliament but restricted alterations to the fundamental features of the Constitution.

The judgment became a bulwark for Indian democracy, shaping the trajectory of the nation. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, Kesavananda Bharati lost, compelling him to relinquish the land associated with his monastery. 

Thus, Kesavananda Bharati's case, also known as Kesavananda Bharati's case, concluded with the petitioner himself on the losing side. Bharati died at a hospital in Mangalore on 6 September 2020 from cardiopulmonary arrest, aged 79.