Case Brief on
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE:
Case Brief on Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Introduction:
Before we come to this particular case, it’s very important for us know the background that existed before this case got decided by one of the largest ever sat benches in the supreme court of India. The larger the bench is, the more significant will be its interpretation. In 1950-51, Government of India introduced articles 31A and 31B through First Constitutional Amendment, 1950. The second provision allowed the government to acquire private property for public purposes and Art. 31B introduced what is called as “the ninth schedule” which gave judicial immunity to any laws brought under its ambit. Laws in that schedule shall not be judicially reviewed in other words.
This amendment basically affected right to property under the then 19(1) (f) of Indian Constitution.
Many important cases like Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965), and Golaknath case (1967) came up.
The important question was identical in all cases and they had produced contrary judgment till Golaknath case.
These contradictions were resolved through Kesavananda Bharati case and basic structure doctrine was introduced in India.
Let us discuss briefly about this case.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner on record is Kesavananda Bharati who at all material times was serving as head of Edneer matha at Edneer, Kerala. The Petitioner managed this property at Kerala; thereupon Kerala Government enacted two main laws –the Kerala Land Reforms (amendment) act of 1969 and also amendment act of 1971.Through these two laws, Kerala government wanted itself to acquire Edneer Matha, an action affected petitioner’s right to property under Indian constitution.Parliament introduced 24th and 25th Amendment acts with a view to override said decision in Golaknath case [1967]. These two amendments along with acts were challenged by the petitioner. Meanwhile, the Kerala government added these laws to the 9th schedule of the constitution through 29th Constitutional amendment act. Supreme Court admitted this 29th amendment also as a challenge by him. Therefore, constitutionality of 24th, 25th and 29th amendments was challenged accordingly by him in this case.
Issues:
Is there one main issue other than what has already been reiterated in earlier cases that is whether amending power of the parliament as per the constitutional provisions is limited or not?
Secondly, does parliament possess power to amend every part of constitution?
Laws involved:
Article 368 Indian Constitution – Powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.
Article 13(4) – Non-applicability of article 13 to article 368.
Contentions:
Both sides contend that;
Mr. Palkhivala argued that the decision in the Golaknath case is a binding precedent for this court. He also made a submission that there can be no injury to those fundamental rights if such is not permissible. It was recognized by the respondent that Parliament cannot destroy citizens’ fundamental rights through its amending power under Article 368 of Indian Constitution. He perceived them as one of the five basic ingredients or principles of the Constitution of India. Finally, he asserted that preamble and scheme limit amending powers under article 368.
On the other hand, Mr Seervai for respondent state and Union of India contended that it becomes permissible to take away rights after the 24th amendments to Indian constitution have been made. Another contention raised was whether parliament’s amendment powers are unlimited or limited subject only to repugnancy, inalienable rights, and preamble.
Decision:
The historical pronouncement has two vital aspects: First relates to restricting parliamentary amending powers; second regarding Doctrine of Basic Structure of Indian constitution.
Firstly, Supreme Court bench upheld 24th Constitutional Amendment and stated that parliament could amend any part of constitution which includes even fundamental rights enumerated under Part III of constitution itself. This was implicit in our Constitution again. Also it upheld Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases on whether amendment is a law stating clearly Constituent power differs from ordinary legislative powers.
Secondly what is more important power of Parliament under Art 368 to amend constitution is restricted by nature .There are no implied limitations on amendment powers nor shall any enforceable right remain as part thereof.
That para above on amendment powers of parliament however will have limitations when it comes to changing basic structure of constitution. But what constitutes basic structure? The court observed and held that basic structure elements are envisaged in the preamble and also in various provisions.Notably, Indian constitutions embodies several features without which such a construct would collapse. Some of them are sovereign, democratic, republic, justice social economic and political equality, liberty of thought etc. Therefore if these elements are withdrawn the identity of constitution will not survive and it will be vague and improper. Therefore this is the concept of basic structure in Indian constitution.
Conclusion:
It can therefore be concluded from this case that while introducing basic structure doctrine into the law of India continuity must remain in the constitution but continuity without identity should be avoided at all costs. This case permitted amendment to take place within the constitution with an implication that any such amendment should not tamper with the fundamental principles contained in preamble and various other provisions.
