AIR 1973 SC 1461: 1973 (4) SCC 225: 1973 (SUP) SCR 1.
History/Facts
- His Holiness Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious ashram in the Kasaragod district of Kerala.
- The petitioner had certain acres of land that were owned by him in his name for the purpose of the Mutt.
- The Kerala state government acquired some of the lands of the Ashram under the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969.
- On March 21, 1970, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the curtailing of his fundamental rights by the state government, i.e., Articles 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 acquire property; and Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition of Property.
- When the petition was still under consideration before the Supreme Court, the state government passed another act named Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971
Background
- In 1967, the Supreme Court held in the GOLAKNATH CASE that the fundamental rights provided under Part III of the Constitution cannot be amended under Article 368.
- In 1969, the Supreme Court struck down the Bank Nationalization Act of 1969 in the case of RC Cooper.
- At 1970, the Supreme Court again struck down the Presidential order that aimed at the abolition of Privy Purses in Madhav Rao Scindia Case
- In 29th Constitutional Amendment Act 1972, the Kerala Land Reforms Act placed under the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, which means this law cannot be passed through under the preview of judicial review
- The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971,
1. Gives the Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
2. Make it compulsory for the President to give his assent to any Constitutional Amendment Bill.
- The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971,
1. Curtailed the Fundamental Right to Property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
2. Provided that any law made to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 39(b) or (c) cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Issues
- Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 is constitutionally valid or not?
- Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 is constitutionally valid or not?
- What is the extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the constitution?
- Whether the word ‘LAW’ in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments?
Arguments of the Petitioners
- The power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution must be limited and restrictive.
- The freedom of citizens of India was taken away by Article 31 (C), which was inserted by the 25th Amendment.
- A protection under the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) is needed.
Arguments of the Respondent
- The state of Kerala argued that the power to amend the Constitution is absolute and unlimited in the hands of Parliament.
- To balance socio-economic discrimination, no restriction should be applied to the Parliament’s power to amend the constitution.
- If this power is limited or restricted, the laws made by states cannot balance the socio-economic problems due to direct conflict with fundamental rights.
- To avoid this conflict, Article 31 C was amended.
Judgement
A 13-judge bench was constituted in the Supreme Court to solve this matter. The Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, held that the Parliament, in the exercise of its constituent power, can amend any provision of the constitution:
- Neither the constitution nor an amendment of the constitution can be or is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13.( decision of Golaknath’s case was overruled.)
- An amendment to the Constitution is an exercise of its constituent power by the Parliament.
- There are no limitations to the power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution.
- There are no implied or inherent limitations on the power of amendment, neither in the Preamble nor in Article 13 of the Constitution.
- The power to amend is wide and unlimited, i.e., to add, repeal, and alter any provision.
- The Constitution is a social document whose conscience lies in Parts III and IV of the Constitution.
- Extent to which the constitution can be amended:
The Court introduced the ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’,
It means that though the parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot interfere with the features so fundamental or basic to the Constitution, without which the Constitution would lose all its spirit.
- With regard to the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, it was held to be valid.
- With regard to the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971, the part that says, “No law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called into question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy” is declared unconstitutional.
- Laws that are enacted to give effect to the Directive Principles are all open to judicial review.
- Laws that are included in the 9th Schedule can be challenged in a court of law if they violate the basic elements of the Constitution.
Conclusion
This 13-judge bench decision is a classic example of Indian judicial policy.
This iconic judgment removed the inherent conflict and ambiguity in constitutional machinery in regard to the possibility of infringing on people’s fundamental rights and parliament’s power to amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
The decision of the majority was to protect the fundamental features of the Constitution, and the decision was to introduce the Doctrine of Basic Structure to keep a check on Parliament’s power and any malicious objectives.
To conclude, this judgment restored the faith of citizens of this country in the judiciary as well as in democracy.
Youtube facebook whatsapp web weather translate google amazon gmail google translate Instagram cricbuzz traductor Hotmail restaurants satta king tiempo twitter googel maps Yandex Sarkari result clima hotels fb yahoo maps chatgpt yahoo mail weather tomorrow Netflix roblox nba wordle tradutor livescore premier league ibomma speed test canva pintrest outlook Instagram login omegle flipkart myntra paypal paytm Alibaba ebay lottery sambad linkedin tiktok shein bbc news real madrid gmail login Walmart ikea cricket snaptik flashscore English to hindi twitch google scholar Barcelona Sarkari Naukri matrimonial shadi lgbtq third gender woman children Advocate barrister vakil supreme court high court commissioner exams ll.b ll.m ugc net law ph.d. m.b.a. graduation degree certificate school additional session judge civil judge justice jurists crime criminology punishment capital sentence death warrant fine constitution of india criminal procedure code civil procedure code evidence act sale of goods act arbitration act all india bar exam lower judiciary higher judiciary additional district attorney contract act amendment act u.s. constitution Canada p r section article schedule judgment vacancy post Porsche louis Vuitton chanel Gucci Hermes dior cartier rolex titan tiffany & co Ferrari estee lauder coach lancome burberry prada omega yves saint Laurent Lamborghini ray-ban Armani Moncler tata reliance Givenchy celine Bentley tag Heuer sk-II can cleef & arpels bulgari Shangri-la lao feng xiang dabur baidyanath cipla birla monte carlo loewe rolls-royce bottega-veneta jaege-leCoulture Maserati valentino dolce & gabbana Salvatore Ferragamo sulwhasso tom ford Maruti Suzuki Hyundai kia intercontinental Tissot aston martin ysl beauty fendi Versace kenzo la mer longines gold price sensex human rights pollution