Kesavananda Bharati v.

The State of Kerala: An Impact Analysis

Author - Associate Debasmita Patra

In the words of renowned author and publisher Zia Mody, the Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala case
has “protected the Indian State from collapsing like many of its South Asian counterparts, whether
through totalitarian rule, military coups or extra-constitutional means.” But before probing into the
details of the case above, let’s go back by a few years.

By invoking Article 368 of the Constitution, whether the Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights as
given under Part III of the Constitution of India, for the first time came into question in Shankari Prasad
v. Union of India. The constitutionality of the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, was challenged
in this case.

This was the beginning of the most impactful legal battle faced by the country. The Supreme Court ruled
that Parliament can amend fundamental rights through Act 368. But things kept dwindling due to
separate dissenting opinions of justices which led to two of the most prominent cases of constitutional
history after independence – Golaknath v. the State of Punjab and Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of
Kerala. While the declaration regarding the non-amendability of fundamental rights was made in the
Golaknath where fundamental rights were reckoned as the primordial rights necessary for the
development of human personality, the Kesavananda Bharti case established the perpetuity of the basic
structure of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court adjudged the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments to the
Constitution in Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225, which was heard by 13
Judges.

FACTS: HH Swami Sripad Kalvaru Kesavananda Bharti is the Senior Head of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu mutt
situated in the village of Edneer, Kerala. The religious sector that he headed owned certain lands. The
Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 and its amendment in 1969 required those lands to be acquired by the
state government in order to fulfill their socio-economic obligations. Bharti challenged the Constitution
(29th Amendment) Act, 1972, which included the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and its amending Act
into the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, and moved to the Apex Court, on Nanabhoy Palkhivala’s
suggestion, and filed a petition in 1970.

The petition upheld his rights and stated against the enforcement of rights under:
Article 25 (freedom to practice and propagate religion).

Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs)

Article 14 (right to equality)

Article 19 (1) (f) (freedom to acquire property)

Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property)

While the petitioner claimed that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is limited and
restricted. The Doctrine of the Basic structure of the Constitution, as propounded by Justice Mudholkar
in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case was the base of the argument.

The respondent, i.e., the State contended that the power of Parliament with respect to amending the
Constitution is absolute, unlimited, and unfettered. This argument was based on the basic principle of
Supremacy of Parliament. The State set forth arguments that if the claim of the petitioner becomes the
law, then all the social and egalitarian obligations bestowed on the Parliament by the Court will come in
direct conflict with the rights under Part III. They contended that even democracy could be turned into a
one-party rule, if needed, by the Parliament.

The judgment of this landmark case was given by the 13 judges’ bench on 24th April 1973, where the
apex court held the entire 24th amendment to the Constitution along with the 2nd limb of the 25th
amendment ultra vires. The Doctrine of the basic structure answered the long-awaited question that
was raised in the Golaknath case, regarding the meaning and extent of ‘ amendment’ that the
Parliament is allowed to conduct. This implies that the Parliament has the prerogative to amend the
entire Constitution, but such amendments must not in any manner interfere with the fundamental
features of the Constitution that would make it spiritless.

The Supreme Court upheld the Land Reform Act and the amendment Acts that had been challenged. But
it struck down the 2nd limb of 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which denied the possibility of
judicial review. Except for a limit imposed on the powers of the Parliament to alter the basic structure,
this case was an overall success for the Government. Chief Justice Sikri held that ‘there were certain
inherent limitations on the Parliaments power to amend based on higher principles underpinning the
Constitution, the republican and democratic form of Government, separation of powers and the secular
and federal character of the Constitution.’ Amendment implies the continued existence of some ‘basic
structure’ of the Constitution of India, both pre and post-amendment, thus preventing the Parliament
from completely abrogating the Constitution.

Thanks to this case and the judgment passed by the bench of 13 judges, since 1975, the courts have
expanded and interpreted the Doctrine to include judicial review of decision by the High Courts and
Supreme Court under Article 226 and 32, secularism and federalism, the freedoms under Article 19,
judicial independence and recently, and judicial primacy in the judicial appointment process to the basic
structure and framework of the Constitution.

The Kesavananda Bharti case judgment is a watershed moment in the Indian polity. Though Bharti lost
his case, the judgment proved to be a savior of democracy and saved it from falling into pieces. As an
effect of the case and its judgments, in various other cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva
Mills v. Union of India, the supremacy of the Constitution and limits on the amending powers of the
Parliament were upheld.