KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU AND ORS. V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR AIR 1973 SC 1461

DATE: 24/04/1973

BENCH: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde, Justice A.N. Grover, Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice D.G. Palekar, and Justice H.R. Khanna

BACKGROUND:

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a landmark in Indian constitutional history, as it established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Before this case, Indian constitutional law was shaped by Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). In Shankari Prasad, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s absolute power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, in Golaknath, the Court ruled that Fundamental Rights were beyond Parliament’s amendment powers, creating friction with Indira Gandhi’s government, which sought socialist reforms like land redistribution. Politically, the late 1960s and early 1970s saw India shift towards socialism. To counter judicial opposition to land reforms, the government passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, reaffirming Parliament’s amending power, limiting judicial review of property laws, and shielding Kerala’s land reforms from scrutiny. This set the stage for a judiciary-legislature showdown.

The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged land reform laws threatening the mutt’s property. His petition under Article 32 soon expanded into a constitutional debate over Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. In a historic 7:6 majority ruling on April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment but struck down parts of the 25th, asserting that Parliament could amend but not destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. This doctrine safeguarded democracy, secularism, and judicial independence, ensuring future amendments remained subject to judicial scrutiny. The ruling redefined the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary, shaping Indian constitutional law.

FACTS:

In the aftermath of India’s independence, land reforms became a key agenda for the government to address feudal landholding patterns and promote social justice. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, was introduced as part of this initiative. The Act sought to redistribute land by imposing a ceiling on individual landholdings and acquiring excess land to distribute it among landless farmers. This reform was aimed at reducing socio-economic inequality. However, it significantly impacted large landowners, including religious institutions that held extensive properties.

One such institution affected by the law was the Edneer Mutt, a religious monastery in Kerala, headed by Kesavananda Bharati. The Mutt owned substantial agricultural land, which the Kerala government sought to acquire under the land ceiling provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The legislation threatened the Mutt’s control over its landholdings, affecting its financial stability and religious operations. In response, Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking protection of his fundamental rights, specifically his right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. He contended that the land reforms unfairly targeted religious institutions and amounted to an unjust expropriation of property.

As Kesavananda Bharati’s case was making its way through the courts, the Union government passed a series of constitutional amendments that significantly altered the legal landscape. These amendments were introduced to curtail judicial interference in land reform policies and strengthen Parliament's authority to implement socio-economic reforms. The 24th Amendment (1971) was the first in this series. It modified Article 368, explicitly granting Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. This amendment was designed to overturn the precedent set by the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, in which the Supreme Court had ruled that fundamental rights were beyond the reach of constitutional amendments.

Following this, the government enacted the 25th Amendment (1972), which curtailed the right to property by restricting the scope of judicial review in cases involving land acquisition compensation. This amendment stipulated that no law giving effect to Directive Principles of State Policy (such as land reforms) could be challenged on the grounds that it violated fundamental rights. To further safeguard the land reform laws from legal challenges, Parliament passed the 29th Amendment (1972), which placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Under Article 31B, laws included in the Ninth Schedule were immune from judicial review, even if they violated fundamental rights.

Faced with the looming threat of land acquisition and the legislative amendments shielding such reforms from judicial scrutiny, Kesavananda Bharati filed his writ petition. He challenged not only the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act but also the constitutionality of the recent amendments, arguing that they infringed upon his fundamental rights. The case grew in significance as it raised profound constitutional questions regarding the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights. It eventually reached the Supreme Court, where it was heard by a 13-judge Constitution Bench, the largest in Indian legal history, marking a pivotal moment in the country’s constitutional development.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute or subject to inherent limitations. 

2. Whether Parliament could amend or abrogate fundamental rights or if certain core principles of the Constitution were beyond its amending power. 

3. Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971), which explicitly granted Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, was valid. 

4. Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment (1972), which restricted judicial review of land acquisition compensation and prioritized Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights, was constitutional. 

5. Whether the 29th Constitutional Amendment (1972), which placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule, was valid and whether placing a law in the Ninth Schedule made it immune from judicial review, even if it violated fundamental rights. 

6. Whether constitutional amendments themselves were subject to judicial review. 

7. Whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act violated the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. 

8. Whether land reforms, aimed at promoting social justice, could infringe upon individual property rights. 

9. Whether Directive Principles of State Policy could override fundamental rights. 

10. Whether there were implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, preventing it from altering or destroying the basic structure of the Constitution.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

1. Article 368 – Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution 

2.  Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies 

3. Article 13(2) – Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights 

4. Article 19(1)(f) (Now repealed) – Right to Property 

5. Article 31 (Now repealed) – Compulsory Acquisition of Property 

6. Article 31A – Saving of Laws Providing for the Acquisition of Estates 

7. Article 31B – Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations 

8. Article 39(b) and (c) – Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
   24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 

9. 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 

10. 29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972 

11. Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963

CASES CITED:

1. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) SCR 89

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 9333

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762

4. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 (also known as the Bank Nationalization Case)

5. Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85

6. I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1967) AIR 1643

7. The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR 284

8. Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) SCR 528

9. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951) SCR 228

10. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88

11. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625

12. State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh (1952) SCR 889

13. Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972) 2 SCC 33

14. Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas (1994) 5 SCC 54

15. P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras (1965) AIR 1017

16. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) AIR 564

17. The State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji (1955) SCR 777

18. In re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (1960) 3 SCR 250

19. The State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1964) 1 SCR 371

20. D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court of India, in a 7:6 majority decision, delivered a historic judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which profoundly shaped Indian constitutional law. The Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 but introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, establishing that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine placed implied limitations on the amending power of Parliament, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution remain intact.

The 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which were at the center of the case, were subjected to intense judicial scrutiny. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, ruling that Parliament indeed had the power to amend fundamental rights, but this power was not absolute. It was limited by the basic structure of the Constitution. The 25th Amendment, which restricted judicial review in cases involving land acquisition compensation and prioritized Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over fundamental rights, was partially upheld. The Court validated the portion of the amendment relating to land acquisition compensation but struck down Section 2 of Article 31C, which excluded judicial review of laws implementing DPSPs. The Court ruled that while DPSPs were important, they could not override fundamental rights, as doing so would undermine the Constitution's essential framework.

RELIEF:

In terms of relief, the Court ruled that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was valid, and the state was allowed to continue its land redistribution efforts. Although Kesavananda Bharati’s petition challenging the land acquisition was dismissed, the case succeeded in establishing new constitutional safeguards. The ruling ensured that future constitutional amendments could be struck down if they violated the basic structure, thereby strengthening the doctrine of judicial review.

REASONING:

The majority opinion articulated that the Constitution of India was intended to be a dynamic and living document, but it also needed to retain its core identity. The Court recognized that while amendments were necessary to adapt to changing social and economic conditions, certain foundational principles—such as democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and judicial independence—could not be altered by Parliament.

The reasoning relied heavily on the interpretation of Article 368, which outlines Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court ruled that although Article 368 provided broad amending powers, it did not grant unfettered authority to alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework. The judges emphasized that certain essential features—such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, the federal structure, and the protection of fundamental rights—were part of the basic structure and thus immune from being abrogated through amendments. In addressing the conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs, the Court held that DPSPs could not override fundamental rights. While DPSPs were vital for achieving socio-economic justice, fundamental rights represented essential guarantees of individual liberty. The Court reasoned that granting DPSPs supremacy over fundamental rights would erode personal freedoms and lead to potential state overreach.

The judgment also clarified the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. By asserting its power of judicial review over constitutional amendments, the Court reinforced the independence of the judiciary and ensured that future governments could not dilute constitutional protections through excessive amendments. In conclusion, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment preserved the right of Parliament to amend the Constitution but placed a limitation on its power by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine became a constitutional safeguard, preventing the government from altering the fundamental identity of the Constitution, thereby ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, democratic values, and judicial independence.

CRITICISMS:

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment, while celebrated for establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, has also faced significant criticism. One of the primary critiques is the lack of clarity and consistency in defining the basic structure itself. The judgment did not provide a clear or exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, leaving it open to subjective judicial interpretation. This ambiguity has led to inconsistent application in subsequent cases, where courts have selectively expanded or restricted the concept based on their interpretation. Additionally, the narrow 7:6 majority in such a landmark decision has been criticized for its fragile consensus, with critics arguing that such a fundamental doctrine should have been backed by a larger or unanimous majority. The case is also viewed as an instance of judicial overreach, as the Court imposed implied limitations on Parliament’s amending power, which were not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Some legal scholars argue that this judicial activism undermined the sovereignty of Parliament, making the judiciary the ultimate interpreter of constitutional changes. Furthermore, the judgment has been criticized for creating a tension between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). By ruling that DPSPs cannot override fundamental rights, the Court arguably weakened the government’s ability to implement progressive socio-economic reforms aimed at promoting welfare and reducing inequalities. Lastly, the judicial review of Ninth Schedule laws, which was introduced in the case, is seen by some as an excessive judicial interference in legislative policy-making, potentially restricting the government's power to implement far-reaching reforms without fear of judicial invalidation.

ANALYSIS:

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark in Indian constitutional history, establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine and reshaping the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which sought to acquire the Mutt’s land. The legal battle expanded into a constitutional challenge against the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which aimed to limit judicial review and strengthen Parliament’s amending power.

The political context was marked by Indira Gandhi’s socialist agenda, which sought to implement land reforms and reduce economic inequality. However, judicial rulings protecting the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 obstructed these reforms. To bypass judicial interference, the government passed the constitutional amendments, triggering the legal battle in Kesavananda Bharati.

The Supreme Court, in a 7:6 majority, introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter or destroy its fundamental framework. The Court identified essential features—democracy, secularism, judicial review, the rule of law, and separation of powers—that formed the basic structure and were immune from parliamentary amendment. This doctrine acted as a safeguard against excessive legislative power.

The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, affirming Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights but subjecting it to the basic structure limitation. The 25th Amendment was partially upheld—validating the land acquisition compensation provisions but striking down Section 2 of Article 31C, which restricted judicial review of laws implementing Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The 29th Amendment, which placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule, was upheld, but the Court ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule were still subject to judicial review if they violated the basic structure.

The case reinforced judicial supremacy by asserting that even constitutional amendments were subject to judicial review. It rejected the government’s attempt to prioritize DPSPs over fundamental rights, preserving individual liberties. Although the right to property was later removed as a fundamental right through the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), the judgment ensured that land reform laws remained subject to judicial scrutiny.

However, the ruling faced criticism for judicial overreach, as the Court imposed implied limitations on Parliament’s amending power, which were not explicitly stated in the Constitution. The narrow 7:6 majority also raised concerns about the fragile consensus on such a fundamental doctrine. Despite criticisms, Kesavananda Bharati remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. It safeguarded the Constitution’s core values, strengthened judicial review, and preserved constitutional supremacy, ensuring that no government could alter the nation’s fundamental principles through unchecked amendments.