The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case of 1973 is pivotal in the history of Indian constitutional law. It set forth the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has become a fundamental principle in the constitutionality of parliamentary amendments.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute involving Kesavananda Bharati, the head of an ashram in Kerala, who challenged the state government’s attempts under land reform legislation to impose restrictions on the management of religious property. This legal challenge quickly escalated to question the broader powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Constitutional Articles Affected
The case specifically addressed the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to the Constitution. These amendments aimed to curtail property rights to implement social reform and land redistribution policies. The challenge was whether these amendments infringed on the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights and the core principles of democracy and federalism.
Judgment Given by the Court
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled by a thin majority of 7-6 that while Parliament had vast powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its ‘basic structure.’ This decision established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that essential features like the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the secular and democratic character of the state remain inviolate.
Impact on the Constitution and Polity
The Kesavananda Bharati case has profoundly impacted the governance and legal landscape of India:
- Preservation of Fundamental Rights: It protected the fundamental rights of citizens from sweeping legislative amendments, especially those that could potentially alter the democratic or federalist ethos of the nation.
- Checks and Balances: It established a clear demarcation of power, asserting the role of the judiciary in checking parliamentary excesses.
- Guidance for Future Amendments: The judgment has served as a guideline for structuring future amendments to the Constitution, ensuring that changes do not undermine the foundational principles of the Constitution.
Subsequent Challenges or Reversals
The principles laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case have been upheld in several subsequent rulings. Notably, the Minerva Mills case (1980) and the Waman Rao case (1981) reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine. These cases further clarified and cemented the judiciary’s role in reviewing constitutional amendments proposed by Parliament.
UPSC Prelims Previous Year Questions Related to the Case
2014 Prelims Question: Which case introduced the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ in the Indian Judiciary?
- (A) Golaknath vs. State of Punjab
- (B) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
- (C) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
- (D) A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras
- Correct Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
2019 Prelims Question: The ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine of the Constitution of India was propounded by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases?- (A) Golaknath vs. State of Punjab
- (B) Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India
- (C) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
- (D) Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain
- Correct Answer: (C) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
UPSC Mains Previous Year Questions Related to the Case
- 2017 Mains GS Paper II Question: Discuss the Basic Structure Doctrine and its implications on parliamentary democracy in India.
- 2020 Mains GS Paper II Question: Analyze the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine and its relevance in contemporary India.
The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a cornerstone of constitutional law in India, emblematic of the judiciary’s role in upholding the fundamental ethos of the Constitution against potential legislative overreach. It is a critical study area for UPSC aspirants, reflecting on the dynamic balance of power, rights, and governance within the country.