Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala – Important Judgement – Judiciary Exam

Table of Contents

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

Article 13(4)- Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.
Meaning- any of the amendment made under Article 368 of the Indian constitution would not be challenged under Article 13, even if the amendment so made is against the fundamental Rights.
Article 13 acts as the protector of the fundamental rights and the Article 368 holds the power to amend the constitution.
13(4) was instituted by the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971.
Ultimately it gave rise to the most important doctrine in Constitutional law- Doctrine of Basic Structure.

Sequence of Events

First Constitutional Amendment Act ⇒ Shankari Prasad Case ⇒ Sajjan Singh Case ⇒ Golaknath Case ⇒ 24^th Constitutional Amendment Act ⇒ Keshavananda Bharti Case

First Constitutional Amendment Act-

Background

To bring land reforms in the country, many states passed Zamindari Abolition Acts.- These Acts curtailed the right to property.
Hence such acts were being challenged in various high courts on the ground that these acts were unconstitutional under article 13 as they infringed the rights provided under article 31.
to put an end to all such suits, first constitutional amendment act was brought in.
it inserted Arts. 31A and 31B in the Constitution of India- which curtailed the Fundamental Right to Property under Article 31
Art. 31B Inserted 9th schedule which acted as a shield for all such acts which were put in this schedule from judicial review.
As a result the zamindars filed a petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution Challenging the first constitutional amendment act.
Title of the case was – Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India, 1951

SC held that –

Parliament is competent to exercise the power of amending the Constitution under Art. 368.
The court gave the verdict that the term law in Article 13 means rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368.
Hence Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court applied the principle of Harmonic Construction as there is a conflict between Article 368 and Article 13.
The provisions of constitution should be interpreted in a manner that they do not conflict with each other and there must be harmony among them.
Again 17th Constitutional Amendment (which included 44 statutes in the 9th Schedule), was challenged in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
The 5-judge bench with a 3:2 majority held that Article 13 doesn’t apply to the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Thus, both Shankari and Sajjan seemed to give more power and weightage to Article 368 over Article 13.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab,

Sajjan Singh Case decision was challenged.
The 11-judge bench held that parliamentary powers under Article 368 were not absolute.
Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights as they are included under Part III,
It further stated that any amendment taking away, abridging upon or in contravention to a fundamental right conferred by Part III is unconstitutional
Golaknath gave priority to Article 13 over Article 368.
This Supreme Court judgement through a larger bench effectively reversed its own previous two decisions.
After Golaknath Judgment Supreme Court was flooded with many petitions challenging the previous amendment to the constitution which took away fundamental rights like first constitutional amendment, 17th constitutional amendment act etc.
Hence Supreme Court had to issue a clarification that the Golaknath judgment would have prospective effect and not the retrospective

Prospective Overruling-

The doctrine of Prospective Overruling, which originated in the American Judicial System, was First applied in India in this case only.
It dictates that a decision made in a particular case would have operation only in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect on any past decisions.

24th Constitutional Amendment

Parliament amended both Article 13 and Article 368 by inserting a 4th sub-clause to both articles.
Art. 13 (4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.
Art.368 (4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in question in any court on any ground.

25^th , 26^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendments

25^thConstitutional Amendment was brought to strip the Supreme Court of the power to determine the quantum of compensation for the takeover of property for public use.
26^th Constitutional Amendment- abolition of privy purse paid to former rulers of princely states which were incorporated into the Indian Republic
29th Amendment Act, 1972 included two Kerala Acts on land reforms in the Ninth Schedule.

Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala, 24 April, 1973

A 13-judge Bench was set up by the Supreme Court, the biggest so far, to hear the case.
The majority judgement 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, Palekar J, Mathew J, Beg J, Dwivedi J and Chandrachud J.
brought an end to the conflict between the executive and the judiciary
The Court did not look into whether Article 13 or Article 368 is more powerful, but decided to take a balanced approach in furtherance of a harmonious interpretation, known as the basic structure doctrine.

Fact

Kesavananda Bharati was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious institution located in Kasaragod district, Kerala.
Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned. The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the government could acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt. In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under:
Article 25, Article 26, Article 14, Article 19(1)(f).
The Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 even as the petition was under the court’s consideration.
Three constitutional amendments – 24^th Amendment, 25^th Amendment and 29^th Amendment were brought in to nullify the Golaknath judgement.

Issues before the Court

Whether the24^th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971, 25^th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972 are constitutionally valid?
The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.
The respondents claimed that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claimed that democracy can even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368.
On the side of the petitioners it is urged that the power of Parliament is much more limited. The petitioners say that the Constitution gave the Indian citizen freedoms which were to subsist for ever and the Constitution was drafted to free the nation from any future tyranny of the representatives of the people.

Kesavananda Bharati Case – Judgement

The landmark judgement was delivered on 24^th April 1973 by a majority of 7:6
the majority held that any provision of the Indian Constitution can be amended by the Parliament in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment did not change the Constitution’s basic structure.
The minority, however, in their dissenting opinion, did not favour giving the Parliament unlimited amending power.
The court upheld the 24^th Constitutional Amendment.
But in 25^th Amendment, that portion of the amendment which restrained the judicial review powers of the court was found to be ultra vires.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

The basic structure doctrine states that the Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution subject to the condition that such amendments should not change the basic structure of the Constitution.
The bench did not mention the basic structure of the Constitution and it was left to the interpretation of the courts.
This was subsequently laid down in several other judgements by the SC.
If the Parliament intends to make an amendment with respect to a constitutional provision, such an amendment would necessarily have to undergo the ‘basic structure’ test.