Introduction
Kesavananda Bharti’s case is one of the important cases of the Indian Constitution, as this case introduced the Doctrine of Basic Structure. So, whenever a student enters law college, his/her teachers and seniors tell them about the Kesavananda Bharti case. The proceedings of this case ran for 68 days, and over 100 cases were set aside for this case to understand what was right and what was wrong. The constitutions of more than seventy countries were compared. The judgment of this case is 703 pages long.
Background
Every state restored its economic and social stability after gaining independence, and when the constitution was formed and people began to comprehend they were entitled to equality, that realization dawned on them. The system in place at the time allowed few people to control the means of production and resources. Gradually, however, people came to see that this was wrong and that all states should reform their current legal frameworks in order to address the issue. So, using the Zamindari system, land ownership, & tenancy regulations for reconstruction, the Kerala state government likewise took similar action to restore the economic and social conditions of their region. The Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 was passed by them.
The amount of land that a person can now hold is limited by the Land Reform Act. Since it limited citizens’ property rights, the Kerala government used this statute to purchase Edneer Mutt’s land in the Kasaragod area. The leader of the Edneer Mutt contested this land acquisition since the government’s takeover had a negative impact on the mutt’s revenue and caused difficulties in overseeing the day-to-day operations of the organization. Kesavananda Bharti led the Edneer Mutt, and Nana Bhai Phalkivala represented the matter before the Supreme Court.
Property rights of citizens were restricted by the Land Reform Act. Because of this, Kesavananda Bharti objected and contested this act in March 1970, claiming that it infringed his fundamental rights as outlined in A.14, A.19(1)(f), A.25, and A.26. He filed a writ suit in the Supreme Court for this reason. He stated that a citizen’s fundamental right to own and manage land is one that ought to be upheld.
Issues
a. Can Parliament Amend Fundamental Rights? If so, to what extent?
b. Whether the 24th Amendment Act is constitutionally valid?
c. Whether the 25th Amendment Act is constitutionally valid?
Arguments advanced
- Petitioner:
Their first argument was that Parliament’s ability to modify the Constitution, as granted by Article 368, is not unqualified. Because of the limitations and restrictions on this power, Parliament is unable to alter the provisions as they see fit. Second, the rights outlined in the Constitution—such as those related to property rights in Article 19(1)(f)—are meant to safeguard citizens’ freedoms.
They contend that people’s fundamental rights are restricted by the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth Amendment Acts.
- Respondents:
The respondents contended that Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution is unrestricted and absolute. They contend that as every state needs to improve its social and economic circumstances, Parliament’s authority should not be limited because, in such a case, they cannot be able to occasionally meet the needs of society.
Respondents assert that Parliament has the authority to impose limitations on a number of fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion, the right to form associations, and the freedom of speech and expression.
Judgment
A majority decision of 7:6 was reached in this case. It was ruled that Parliament could not change the Fundamental Rights in the earlier case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab. In addition to being overturned because it was stated incorrectly, the 24th Amendment Act—which declared that Parliament had the authority to amend any provision of the Constitution—was also contested. The Supreme Court ruled that, in accordance with Article 368, Parliament possesses the total authority to amend any provision of the Constitution.
The Parliament can change any article of the Constitution, but it can only do so to the degree that it does not conflict with fundamental and necessary elements. This is known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, and it was accompanied by the declaration of the validity of the twenty-fifth and twenty-ninth Amendment Acts in this case. It further stated that laws that violate fundamental aspects of the Constitution and are placed under Schedule 9 are subject to judicial review and challenge in court.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure
The judiciary uses the basic structure doctrine, a type of judicial scrutiny, to decide if a given statute is legitimate. The following highlights the significance of the basic structure doctrine:
The basic structure concept safeguards the essential ideas and principles of the Constitution. It implies that it protects concepts like the rule of law, the separation of powers, and citizens’ fundamental rights. It emphasizes the idea that the Constitution’s fundamental principles cannot be changed in a way that would undermine them.
With the use of this basic structural doctrine, the judiciary prohibits any arbitrary constitutional revisions made by a political party. It serves as a crucial instrument for limiting Parliament’s unrestricted ability to modify laws. As a result, the governing party cannot arbitrarily alter the Constitution.
The basic structure theory upholds and preserves the constitutional identity. It facilitates the authentic and original spirit of the Constitution’s operation. This fundamental principle of structure helps to balance the Constitution’s flexibility and rigidity. Without sacrificing the necessary constitutional amendments, it upholds the fundamental ideas of the document. Therefore, the basic structural doctrine saves enduring constitutional principles.
Conclusion
One of the seminal instances that formed Indian democracy and the fundamental structure concept was Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. One of the key constitutional cases that protected citizens’ basic rights is the one that said any amendment that violates those rights would be automatically ruled invalid. In this sense, democracy was formed, and the Indian judiciary curtailed the legislature’s ability to modify laws. A majority of the panel of judges in this matter wanted to inviolate fundamental rights to safeguard citizens’ interests. Additionally, this decision established several important precedents for how the Constitution should be interpreted. A panel consisting of thirteen judges was assembled to consider this case and render a verdict.
The bench noted that the ruling party might have abused or arbitrarily used this power at its discretion if the legislature had been granted unrestricted authority to modify the Constitution. The whole foundation and essence of the Indian Constitution will be altered by arbitrary rule and dictatorship that would result from such unbridled authority. In the cases of Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath, the basic structure concept was disregarded. Therefore, the Indian judiciary created a concept that protected citizens’ rights without interference from political parties to sustain democracy. Thus, the basic structure doctrine additionally eradicates the concern that any political party may abuse or misuse its authority. Thus, this case demonstrated the independence of the Indian judiciary and its total independence from governmental control. Thus, this ruling supported the fundamental principles and ideals of the Constitution.
Contributed By: Diwanshi Arya (Intern)