KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA 1973 (4) SCC 225

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA 1973 ( 4) SCC 225

FACTS

Kesavananda Bharti was the leader of the Edneer Mutt religious group in Kerala. There was a dispute over the ownership of several pieces of land associated with the sect. The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act of 1969, which granted the government the power to take over a portion of the land owned by the sect.

 Kesavananda Bharti approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32, alleging that his fundamental rights under Article 25 (the right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (the right to manage religious affairs), Article 14 (the right to equality), Article 31 (the right not to be subjected to compulsory acquisition of property), and Article 19(1)(f) (the freedom to acquire property) had been violated.

While the case was still pending in court, the Kerala government passed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971. Several changes were made in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, including the 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act of 1971, which stated that Parliament had the authority to amend the constitution's provisions. Additionally, the 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act established that the state was not obligated to provide equivalent compensation to the owner when acquiring private property.

 

ISSUES:

• Are the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments to the Constitution constitutionally valid?
• whether the Constitution may be amended by the Parliament?

 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:

The petitioner contended that the Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution is limited, and it cannot change the fundamental structure or design of the Constitution. He relied on the precedent set in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where Justice Mudhokar stated that Parliament cannot use its authority to alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The petitioner sought protection for his property rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. He argued that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments violated his fundamental rights, which are essential for protecting the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

  

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:

The State, representing the government, argued that the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy underlies the Indian legal system, giving Parliament unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution. The State contended that Parliament should have the freedom to make constitutional amendments without limitations to fulfill its socioeconomic commitments outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.

 

JUDGMENT:

• In a majority decision of 7:6, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution to fulfill its socio-economic responsibilities as outlined in the Preamble, as long as such amendments do not alter the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. However, a minority of judges in dissent expressed concerns about granting Parliament unrestricted amending power.
• The court upheld the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment in its entirety. Regarding the 25th Constitutional Amendment, the court found that the first part was within the scope of Parliament's powers (intra vires), but the second part exceeded its powers (ultra vires).