Case Brief on "Keshavananda Bharati Case" by Lata Kumari

 

By Lata Kumari

Course: BBA LLB

Year: Fourth

Semester: 7^th

College: Army Law College

Case Brief of Keshavananda Bharati case

Introduction

Keshvananda Bharati is a landmark case. The choice of the Supreme Court outlined the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. A really unique and thoughtful decision was given by the bench within the case of Keshavananda Bharati. The judgment lapsed the court was of 700 pages including an answer for both Parliament’s right to amend laws and citizen’s right to shield their Fundamental Rights. So as to shield the interests of both the Parliament and citizens of India the Bench came up with Doctrine of Basic Structure. The questions which were left unanswered in Golaknath’s case were solved by the bench through this judgement. By putting a restriction on the Parliament’s right to amend the Constitution, this case overruled the judgement passed within the case of Golaknath v State of Punjab. To confirm that the amendments don’t remove the rights of the citizens which were sure to them by the elemental Rights, the Doctrine of basic structure was introduced.

Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati & Others

Respondent: State of Kerala

Bench: S.M. Sikri, K.S. Hegde, A.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna, A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, & Y.V. Chandrachud.

 

Summary of Facts

Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a spiritual sect in Kasaragod district of Kerala. He owned certain pieces of land within the sect in his name. The Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 was introduced by the regime of Kerala. In step with this act, the regime was entitled to accumulate some a part of the sect’s land . On 21^st March 1970, Keshvananda Bharti, chief of the sect moved to Supreme Court under Section 32 of the Indian Constitution for enforcement of his rights which guaranteed under Article 25 (Right to practice and propagate religion), Article 26 (Right to manage religious affairs), Article 14 (Right to equality), Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to amass property), Article 31 (Compulsory Acquisition of Property). When the petition was already into account by the Supreme Court, the Kerala Government introduced another act i.e. Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. The parliament passed a series of Amendments after the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab so as to overrule the judgment of the Golaknath case. The 24^th Amendment was passed in 1971 and 25^th and 29^th Amendment were passed in 1972 subsequently. The amendments made after Golaknath’s case which were challenged within the present case were:

24^th Amendment

In Golaknath v. State of Punjab, it had been mentioned within the judgment that each Amendment which is created under Article 368, are taken as an exception under Article 13. Henceforth, the Parliament through an Amendment in Article 13 of the Constitution annexed clause 4 so as to neutralize the effect under Article 13. The Parliament added clause 3 to Article 368 so as to get rid of any reasonably ambiguity which reads as follows, “Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this text.” Within the Golaknath case, the bulk of the bench decided that Article 368 earlier contained the supply within which the procedure of Amendment was given but not the ability therefore, Article 368 was amended and therefore the word power was included within the Marginal Note. The Parliament tried to differentiate the procedure in an amendment and a normal law through an amendment in Article 368(2). Prior the amendment the President was holding the ability to refuse or withhold a bill for the amendment. After the 24^th Amendment, the President didn’t posses the ability to refuse or withhold a bill. This was the action taken by the Parliament so as to guard the amendment from the exception that’s mentioned under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

25^th Amendment

With the assistance of 25^th Amendment, the Parliament wanted to say it clearly that they’re not responsible to adequately compensate the landlords if their property is taken by the regime and so as to try to therefore the word amount replaced the word ‘compensation’ under Article 31(2) of the Constitution.

The link between Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) was removed.

According to Article 31 of the Indian Constitution, a brand new provision was introduced so as to get rid of all obstacles and to satisfy the objectives mentioned within the Article 39(b) and 39(c), it absolutely was mentioned that Articles 14, 19 & 31 won’t be applicable to any law. The court was immunized from intervening in any law made by the Parliament, so as to form Article 39(b) and 39(c) effective.

29^th Amendment

This Amendment was passed within the year 1972 so as to insert the Kerala Land Reforms Act into the 9^th Schedule which mentioned that the matters associated with the Kerala Land Reforms Act are going to be outside the scope of the judiciary to undertake. All the amendments which were introduced by the Central Government in some or other way covered the amendments made by regime from being tried within the court of law. 24^th 25^th and 29^th Amendments together with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act were challenged within the court of law.

 

Issues Raised

Whether the 24^th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid or not?

Whether the 25^th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid or not?

The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution.

 

Judgment

It was laid down by the Supreme court by a majority of 7:6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution to meet its socio-economic obligations certain to the citizens under the Preamble subject to the condition that such amendment won’t change the essential structure of the Indian Constitution. The bulk decision was delivered by S.M. Sikri CJI, K.S. Hegde, B.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy JJ. & Khanna J. Whereas, the minority opinions were written by A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V. Chandrachudjj. The minority bench wrote different opinions but was still reluctant to allow unfettered authority to the Parliament. The landmark case was selected 24^th April 1973. The court upheld the 24^th Constitutional Amendment entirely but the first and 2^nd a part of the 25^th Constitutional Amendment Act was found to be intra vires and ultra vires respectively. It absolutely was observed by the court in relevance the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution that it absolutely was an issue that was left unanswered within the case of Golaknath. The solution to the question was found within the present case and it absolutely was deduced by the court that the Parliament has the ability to amend the Constitution to the extent that such amendment doesn’t change the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution. It absolutely was laid down by the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be followed by the Parliament while amending the provisions of the Constitution.

The Doctrine of Basic Structure

According to the doctrine, the Parliament has a limiteless power to amend the Constitution subject to the only condition that such amendments must not change the fundamental structure of the Constitution. The Parliament shouldn’t in any manner interfere with the fundamental features of the Constitution without which our Constitution are left spiritless and lose its very essence. The essential structure of the Constitution wasn’t mentioned by the bench and was left to the interpretation of the courts. The Courts must see and interpret if a selected amendment violates the essential structure of our Indian Constitution or not. The court found that as contended by the respondents actually there’s a difference between ordinary law and an amendment. Keshvananda Bharti’s case to some extent overruled Golaknath’s case. The court, during this case, answered the question which was left unanswered in Golaknath’s case in regard to the ability of Parliament to amend provisions of the Constitution. The court found that the word ‘amend’ which was included in Article 368 doesn’t sit down with amendments that may change the essential structure of the constitution. If Parliament wants to amend a specific provision of the Constitution then such amendment would want to travel through the test of basic structure. It was also decided that since the Parliament has an infinite power to amend the Constitution subject to the fundamental structure then Parliament can even amend Fundamental Rights as far as they’re not included within the basic structure of the Constitution. 24^th Amendment was upheld by the Bench whereas the 25^th Amendment’s 2^nd part was struck down. The 25^th Amendment’s validation was subjected to 2 conditions:

The court agreed that the word amount and compensation isn’t resembling one another but still the number which is provided by the govt to the landlords mustn’t be unreasonable. The number needn’t be adequate to the market price but should be reasonable and closely associated with the current market price.

The 1^st a part of the 25^th Amendment was upheld but it absolutely was subject to the availability that the prohibition of judiciary’s reach are struck down.

 

Critical Analysis

The majority of the Bench wanted to preserve the Indian Constitution by protecting the essential features of the Constitution. The judgment was given after analyzing the assorted aspects and was supported sound reasoning. The Bench feared that if the Parliament would be given unlimited power to amend our Indian Constitution then the facility are misused and would be changed by the govt per its own will and preferences. The essential features and also the very spirit of the Constitution will be altered by the govt. if they need unlimited powers to create amendments. There was a necessity for a doctrine to preserve the rights of both Parliament and citizens, therefore, the Bench came up with a midway to shield both of their rights through the doctrine of Basic Structure. Even before our Indian Constitution came into force, approximately 30 amendments were already made to that. After the commencement of the Indian Constitution in 1951, around 150 amendments are passed, whereas, within the u. s., only 27 amendments are passed in 230 years. Despite the large number of amendments, the spirit, and ideas of the framers of the Indian Constitution have remained intact. Indian Constitution didn’t lose its identity and spirit thanks to the choice taken by the Bench during this case. The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti provided stability to the Constitution. Though the petitioner lost his case partially, yet the judgment that was given by the Bench, during this case, found out to be a savior of Indian democracy and saved the Constitution from losing its spirit.