Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the struggle between the legislative and the judiciary resulted in the “fundamental structure” theory. Talk about it. What impact does the case have on Parliament’s ability to modify the Constitution? (Answer in 250 words)
In the decades preceding the Kesavananda Bharati case, the amending powers of the Parliament was increased and scope for judicial review was narrowed through cases like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965). The Parliament had also passed the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to curtail the powers of the judiciary and limit the scope of judicial review. The 25th and 29th Amendments were later passed, which sought to limit the fundamental rights of citizens and give Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, land reforms measures were being undertaken in Kerala. In 1970, the Government of Kerala imposed restrictions on the ownership of land held by religious institutions. The Edneer Mutt, headed by Sri Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the constitutionality of the Act and aforementioned constitutional amendments.
After listening to the case for 6 months, the Supreme Court on 24 April 1973, in a historic 7:6 majority decision, propounded the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. It held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament.
Important aspect of verdict of the case and how it limits the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution:
The case thus held that the Parliament has unfettered power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot disturb the basic structure of the Constitution as it has only the power of amendment and not of rewriting the constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case thus had far-reaching consequences for the constitutional development of India, making it one of the most significant cases in Indian constitutional law.
Indian constitution is a bag of borrowing in which different provisions were extracted from differen constitutions around the world.However the impact of British constitution is overwhelmingly presented . In light of this, there was ambiguity between judicial supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty in the Indian constitution which was synthesized with the judgement of Keshavanand Bharti Case (1973).
The tussle was started with first constitution amendment act for land reforms and introduction of Ninth schedule.
Initially the purpose of Ninth schedule was sacrosanct , gradually it was politicised and tussle was started between judiciary and parliament.
The tussle was clearly seen in Golaknath case and 24th and 25th constitutional amendment.
In order to protect the soul of the constitution Supreme court formulated the concept of basic structure in Keshavanand Bharti Case.
The case has following significance in limiting the power of parliament to amend the constitution
1) Basic structure of the constitution – With the help of this principle supreme court prohibited parliament to play with the spirit of the constitution.
2) Separation of power is maintained with this judgement, for example Supreme court stuck down the 99th constitutional amendments act which was breaching the judicial autonomy .
3) It established the healthy federalism between the centre and the state which was rampantly scratched before the judgement . Example – imposition of president rule in the state has become tougher now.
4) Fundamental rights are guaranteed in true sense . Article 14, 15 ,19 ,21 are being implemented in more nuanced way.
5) Limits the politics of appeasement – Supreme court limit the politics of caste and creed. For example in Indira Sahni case it imposed a cap on 50 percent reservation. Recently it stuck down reservation in Bihar on basis of caste over 50% cap.
Basic structure is still not defined in nuanced way . However apex court said that the our constitution is a living document and it will change adopt and enact according to time and circumstances
Hence the judgement protected the heart and soul of the constitution and it is our collective responsibility to protect and defend our constitution more proactively.
The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973 marks a pivotal moment in the constitutional history of India, representing the continuing tussle between the legislature and judiciary over the limits of parliamentary power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. This debate began as early as 1951 when, in the Shankari Prasad case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. Further, the Golaknath case (1967) declared that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, awarding them a “transcendental position,” thus intensifying the conflict. This was followed by the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments, which sought to nullify this judgment and assert parliamentary supremacy.
In this backdrop, Kesavananda Bharati, a seer from Kerala, challenged the constitutionality of these amendments. The case was heard by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest in Indian judicial history. This historic judgment introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. The Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its ‘basic structure.’ This doctrine was not comprehensively defined but included elements like the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, and the federal character of the Constitution.
This case had a profound impact on Indian democracy:
Subsequent cases, such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), reaffirmed and expanded this doctrine, solidifying its role in India’s constitutional jurisprudence.
While the basic structure doctrine is widely accepted, the exact features it encompasses remain a subject of debate. This ongoing discussion ensures the Constitution remains relevant and adaptable to changing times, while still safeguarding its core values.
All democratic countries are governed by a Constitution. In the 1967 Golaknath case, India’s Supreme Court ruled that Parliament couldn’t amend fundamental rights. Adolf Hitler’s transformation of Germany’s Weimar Constitution from democratic to dictatorial is a notable example of altering a constitution.
In 1972, the Keshavananda Bharati case settled the debate on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Keshavananda Bharati, chief priest at Sri Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963, claiming it violated Article 26 on religious freedom. This case allowed the Supreme Court to define Parliament’s amendment authority.
The Court’s ruling affirmed the Constitution’s supremacy and established the “basic structure doctrine,” which prevents amendments that alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution. This doctrine was later applied in the Minerva Mills and Waman Rao cases. The 24th and 25th Amendments of 1971 aimed to nullify the Golaknath judgment.
The Keshavananda Bharati case, concluded in March 1973 by a 13-judge bench, resulted in a 7:6 decision, with Justice H.R. Khanna as the tiebreaker. Although Bharati lost, the basic structure doctrine was established. Justice A.N. Ray, who dissented, later became Chief Justice of India.
The Keshavananda Bharati case was crucial in shaping Indian constitutional law, ensuring protection against potential authoritarianism.