Table of Contents
ToggleFacts:
The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader and the head of a math (religious institution) in Kerala, challenged the constitutional validity of two major amendments: the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments. These amendments aimed to modify various aspects of the Constitution, especially regarding land reform laws and the power of judicial review.
- The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, and made the provisions of Article 368 (which deals with the process of constitutional amendments) supreme over the provisions of any other law.
- The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 sought to further amend the Constitution to give the government more flexibility in making laws related to land reforms. The amendment, however, limited judicial review in matters related to the protection of property rights.
Kesavananda Bharati, whose religious institution’s land was subject to the Kerala land reforms, challenged these amendments on the grounds that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. He argued that no amendment should have the power to alter the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.
The case was heard by a 13-judge bench, making it one of the largest benches in Indian legal history. The judgment was delivered after a prolonged deliberation and several opinions were written by different judges, with the majority and minority opinions differing on critical points.
Issue:
- Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 is constitutionally valid?
- Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 is constitutionally valid?
- What is the extent to which Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution, especially with respect to altering or repealing its basic structure?
Ratio Decidendi:
- Majority Opinion (7:6 decision) – The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has plenary (unlimited) power to amend the Constitution, including its fundamental rights, under Article 368. However, this power is not absolute and cannot extend to altering the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the core principles upon which the entire framework of governance is based.
- This is known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, which was formulated in this landmark case.
- The Court held that even though Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy or alter its basic structure, which includes concepts like democracy, federalism, separation of powers, and the welfare state.
- Justice Khanna’s Concurrence – Although agreeing with the majority’s stance on Parliament’s power to amend, Justice Khanna added that while the power is plenary, it does not extend to changing the Constitution’s basic structure or framework. This reinforced the principle that the amendment power is not unlimited.
- Justice Ray and Justice Mathew’s Opinion – Both Justices Ray and Mathew concurred with the majority’s conclusion that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but emphasized that this power should not be absolute. In their view, reforms should be in alignment with the fundamental framework of the Constitution and must not result in a constitutional void. The continuity of the Constitution’s framework must be maintained at all times.
Observations:
- Basic Structure Doctrine – This case is significant for its formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became a foundational principle in Indian constitutional law. It ensures that any amendment to the Constitution that alters its essential character, or core principles, is unconstitutional.
- Core principles identified by the Court as part of the basic structure include the democratic form of government, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, and the welfare state.
- This doctrine essentially places an important limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring that amendments do not undermine the Constitution’s fundamental identity.
- Impact on Constitutional Amendments – The judgment set a precedent that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is vast but not unlimited. Future amendments would be evaluated against the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that no amendment undermines the constitutional framework’s fundamental values.
- Role of Judicial Review – The case also reiterated the importance of judicial review in safeguarding the Constitution. Even though Parliament can amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court retains the right to review amendments to ensure they comply with the basic structure.
- The Court’s Approach to Social Engineering – The Court emphasized the importance of social engineering, where judicial decisions balance the rights of individuals and the needs of society. It sought to balance the interests of both the Parliament (which sought to amend the Constitution) and the judiciary (which safeguards the Constitution’s identity).
Decision:
- The 13-judge bench delivered a split verdict with 7 judges upholding the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, and 6 dissenting.
- The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its basic structure. This was the cornerstone of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- The Court upheld the first part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 as valid (specifically, the provision relating to land reforms and changes in property rights), but it struck down the second part of the Act as being ultra vires (beyond the scope of Parliament’s amending power).
- The judgment concluded that amendments should not be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, which is meant to establish a welfare state and a fair society.
Important Terms:
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
The principle that the basic framework of the Constitution cannot be altered or amended by Parliament, even if such an amendment is passed following the procedure laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution. It ensures that the fundamental principles and core values of the Constitution remain intact. - Plenary Power:
A term used to describe the full and complete power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. However, this power is limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring it does not extend to changing the essential features of the Constitution. - Ultra Vires:
A Latin term meaning “beyond the powers.” It refers to actions or laws that are beyond the legal authority granted by the Constitution. In this case, the Court found part of the 25th Amendment Act to be ultra vires, as it exceeded Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. - Judicial Review:
The process by which courts review the constitutionality of laws and amendments. In the Kesavananda case, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be altered or removed by constitutional amendments. - Constitutional Amendment (Article 368):
This article grants Parliament the power to amend the provisions of the Constitution, provided the amendment is passed in accordance with a prescribed procedure. The Kesavananda case confirmed that while Parliament has the authority to amend, it cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.