The Indian Supreme Court rendered a decision in the kesavananda bharati v state of kerala case on April 24, 1973. Because it influenced how the Indian Constitution is construed, this historic case is regarded as one of the most significant in the country’s constitutional history. Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader and philosopher, was the primary petitioner in this case. He contended that the Indian Constitution ought to be read as a static text rather than a dynamic one.
kesavananda bharati v state of kerala Case Facts
- The principal petitioner, Kesavananda Bharti, was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious sect based in Kerala. A portion of the sect’s territory was named after Kesavananda Bharati.
- The state government and the members of the sect disagreed on who owned these lands in certain cases. The Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 was introduced by the Kerala state government, giving it the authority to seize a portion of the land that belonged to the plaintiff.
- In response to violations of his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (Right to practice and propagate religion), 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), 14 (right to equality), 31 (compulsory acquisition of property), and 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property), Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition under article 32 of the indian constitution with the Supreme Court.
- Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) statute, 1971 was another statute passed by the Kerala government while the case was still pending in court. A number of adjustments were made in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, including the 24th constitutional amendment act 1971, which declares that Parliament has the authority to change constitutional provisions.
- According to the 25th constitutional amendment act, the state is not required to compensate the owner equally if it appropriates private property.
kesavananda bharati v state of kerala Issues
- Is the 24th constitutional amendment act of 1971 lawful under the constitution?
- Is the 25th constitutional amendment act of 1972 lawful under the constitution?
- How far may the Parliament go in using its authority to change the Constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Petitioners argued that because the Parliament has limited authority, theyare unable to change the Constitution in the way they see fit. The fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be altered by the Parliament, as Justice Mudholkar stated in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case.
- They claimed that Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution was violated by the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments.
Respondent:
- The State claimed that because Parliament’s supremacy forms the fundamental framework of the Indian legal system, it possesses unrestricted authority to alter the Constitution. The respondents emphasized that the Parliament’s unrestricted authority to modify the Constitution must be maintained if it is to fulfill its socioeconomic commitments.
kesavananda bharati v state of kerala Judgment
- By a vote of 7 to 6, the 13-judge panel decided that the Parliament can change any provision of the constitution, provided that it doesn’t conflict with the basic structure of the constitution.
- The 25th constitutional amendment act of 1972’s first section was deemed intra vires and its second half ultra vires, however the full 24th constitutional amendment act of 1971 was maintained by the supreme court.
- The Supreme Court also ruled that Article 368 included the authority to change the Constitution. The Court dismissed the claim that a constitutional modification made in accordance with Article 368 becomes a legislation as defined by Article 13.
- The argument of implied constraints on the power of amendment was also rejected by the Court. But because section 3 of the 25th Amendment Act permitted the erasure of essential constitutional components and features; the Court reaffirmed its position that the section was unconstitutional.
Forever renowned for making a major contribution to Indian constitutional law is the Kesavananda Bharati case. The Supreme Court established itself as the protector of India’s Constitution by enacting the fundamental structure doctrine and restricting Parliament’s ability to modify it. This concept, according to legal scholars, improved judicial review in India and is a “unconventional judicial innovation.”
The protracted hearings resulted in lengthy debates on the core nature and intent of the Constitution from both sides. The case represented the struggle to maintain the fundamental principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law while maintaining Parliament’s ability to modify the Constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court adopted a fair-minded stance, holding that while Parliament may amend the Constitution, it may not do so in a way that would change its core principles. Every subsequent constitutional amendment has been influenced by this complex interpretation.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
