Explained:The Kesavananda Bharati Case - IN NEWS | Drishti IAS English

Summary

The Kesavananda Bharati case, celebrated on its 50th anniversary in 2023, is one of India's most important constitutional judgments. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The case arose from a challenge to Kerala's Land Reform Act of 1969, which impacted Kesavananda's religious institution. The judgment's legacy has influenced subsequent rulings and shaped the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary. While the doctrine has been instrumental in preserving democratic principles, its ambiguity and the judiciary's interpretive role have sparked debates over its true scope.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Kesavananda Bharati judgment marks its 50th anniversary and is considered one of India's most important constitutional cases.
• 🧘‍♂️ Kesavananda Bharati, born in 1940, headed the Edneer Mutt and challenged Kerala’s 1969 Land Reform Act after it affected the Mutt’s property.
• ⚖️ The case led to the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• 📚 The challenge brought by Bharati was based on alleged violations of Articles 25, 26, and 31 concerning religious freedom and property rights.
• 🏛️ Four major cases shaped the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine: Shankari Prasad (1951), Golaknath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and Minerva Mills (1980).
• 🔍 Shankari Prasad ruled Parliament could amend fundamental rights, while Golaknath reversed this and restricted Parliament’s amending power.
• 📝 Parliament responded to Golaknath by passing the 24th Amendment, asserting unlimited amendment power, later tested in the Kesavananda case.
• ⚖️ The Kesavananda ruling (7–6 verdict) upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but not in a way that damages its basic structure.
• 🏗️ Basic structure elements include federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial independence, rule of law, separation of powers, and free elections.
• 📌 The doctrine ensures constitutional supremacy, prevents authoritarianism, and maintains balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
• ❗ Critics argue that the Basic Structure Doctrine lacks explicit constitutional mention and grants excessive interpretive power to the judiciary.

Q & A

What is the significance of the Kesavananda Bharti case?

The Kesavananda Bharti case, decided 50 years ago, is one of the most important landmark judgments in Indian constitutional history. It established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution in ways that alter its fundamental principles.

Who was Kesavananda Bharti, and what led him to challenge the Kerala government's Land Reform Act?

Kesavananda Bharti was a Hindu monk and the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala. He challenged the Kerala government's Land Reform Act of 1969 after it led to the loss of a significant portion of his mutt's property. The Act violated his fundamental rights, including the right to religion (Article 25) and the right to property (Article 31).

What was the core issue in the Kesavananda Bharti case?

The core issue in the Kesavananda Bharti case was whether Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Bharti argued that the Kerala Land Reform Act violated his fundamental rights, and this case eventually led to the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine, and how did it evolve in the Kesavananda Bharti case?

The Basic Structure Doctrine asserts that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. This principle was evolved in the Kesavananda Bharti case, where the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it must not affect its basic principles, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.

What were the key cases that contributed to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine?

The Basic Structure Doctrine developed through several key cases, including: 1) Shankari Prasad case (1951) which allowed Parliament to amend fundamental rights, 2) Golaknath case (1967) which held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights, 3) Kesavananda Bharti case (1973) which upheld the basic structure concept, and 4) Minerva Mills case (1980) which reinforced the limitations on Parliament's power.

How did the Golaknath case contradict the Shankari Prasad case?

In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend fundamental rights, while in the Golaknath case (1967), the Court reversed this stance, stating that fundamental rights were transcendental and immutable, thus Parliament could not amend them. This created a legal conflict that was later resolved in the Kesavananda Bharti case.

What was the outcome of the Kesavananda Bharti case, and how did it shape India's constitutional framework?

In the Kesavananda Bharti case, the Supreme Court ruled by a 7-6 verdict that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, provided it did not alter its basic structure. This landmark judgment ensured that fundamental principles like democracy, secularism, and the rule of law remain protected from arbitrary amendments.

What is the significance of the Minerva Mills case in relation to the Basic Structure Doctrine?

The Minerva Mills case (1980) played a crucial role in reinforcing the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme Court invalidated the 42nd Amendment, which had tried to remove judicial review and increase Parliament's power. The Court stated that the power of judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be diminished.

What criticisms have been raised against the Basic Structure Doctrine?

Critics argue that the Basic Structure Doctrine lacks clear definition and is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. The lack of clarity about what constitutes the 'basic structure' has led to debates about judicial overreach, with some arguing that the judiciary imposes its interpretation without a concrete legal basis.

How does the Basic Structure Doctrine protect democracy in India?

The Basic Structure Doctrine serves as a safeguard for India's democracy by ensuring that fundamental constitutional principles such as secularism, democracy, judicial independence, and the rule of law are preserved. It limits Parliament's power to amend these core values, thus maintaining a balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.