The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) remains one of the most significant judgments in Indian constitutional history. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, fundamentally shaping the scope of parliamentary power and the sanctity of the Constitution. This judgment not only defined the boundaries for constitutional amendments but also ensured the preservation of the foundational principles of India’s democracy.
Facts Forming the Background of the Case of Kesavananda Bharati
The genesis of this case lies in the tussle between Parliamentary sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights. In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a petition challenging the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which imposed restrictions on the management of religious property. Bharati argued that this law violated his fundamental rights under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion), Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs), and Article 31 (Right to Property) of the Indian Constitution.
Simultaneously, tensions had been escalating between the judiciary and the government regarding the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Previous judgments in the Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) cases upheld Parliament’s unlimited amending power. However, in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
In response, Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments to assert its authority. These amendments curtailed judicial review and broadened Parliament’s power, intensifying the conflict that culminated in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
The Law Settled on the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Kesavananda Bharati case was heard by a 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history, over a record 68 days. The primary question before the court was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute or subject to limitations.
By a narrow 7:6 majority, the court ruled that while Parliament has extensive powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features. Although the judgment did not provide a conclusive list of what constitutes the basic structure, it identified certain elements, including:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of Law
- Separation of Powers
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Democracy
- Sovereignty and Unity of India
This doctrine ensured that the core ideals and principles of the Constitution remained intact, even as Parliament exercised its power to amend other provisions.
Consequences of the Case
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment had profound and far-reaching implications for Indian democracy:
- Judicial Supremacy: The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution. It empowered the courts to review and strike down constitutional amendments that violated the basic structure.
- Balance of Power: By limiting Parliament’s amending authority, the judgment created a balance between the legislative and judicial branches, ensuring that neither could undermine the Constitution’s fundamental values.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The doctrine acted as a safeguard against any attempt to dilute or erode fundamental rights under the guise of constitutional amendments.
- Guidance for Governance: The concept of the basic structure has guided subsequent governments and legislatures, ensuring that policies and laws adhere to constitutional principles.
Can This Judgment Be Overruled?
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment has stood the test of time for over five decades, becoming a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. However, the question of whether it can be overruled remains a subject of legal and academic debate.
Overruling the judgment would require a reconsideration by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Such a scenario is unlikely due to several reasons:
- Judicial Precedent: The doctrine of stare decisis emphasizes the importance of adhering to well-established precedents, especially those foundational to the legal system.
- Entrenched Principles: The basic structure doctrine has become deeply ingrained in India’s constitutional framework, influencing countless decisions and governance policies.
- Public Trust: Overturning the judgment could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the Constitution.
- Practical Challenges: Any attempt to dilute or disregard the basic structure doctrine would likely face widespread opposition from legal scholars, civil society, and political stakeholders.
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a monumental milestone in the evolution of India’s constitutional jurisprudence. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that the foundational ideals of democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial independence remain inviolable. While the judgment resolved the immediate conflict between Parliament and the judiciary, its principles continue to guide the governance and legal interpretation of the Constitution. Overruling this judgment is not only improbable but would also risk destabilizing the constitutional equilibrium that it so meticulously established. The case stands as a testament to the resilience and adaptability of India’s constitutional democracy.
