Kesavananda Bharati Case Lecture Notes

Importance of the Case

• Considered one of the most important cases in Indian constitutional law.
• Known for being the longest case in India, lasting 68 days.
• Over 100 other cases were postponed due to its importance.
• The judgment is 703 pages long.
• Constitutions of over 70 countries were examined to understand constitutional rights.

Background

• Post-independence, states were rebuilding their social and economic conditions.
• Fundamental rights highlighted citizens' rights to equality.
• Wealth concentration, land ownership issues led to reforms.
• Kerala introduced the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 to control land ownership.
• The Act restricted property rights, leading to government acquisition of land.
• The Edneer Mutt's land was acquired, affecting its income.

The Lawsuit

• Head of Edneer Mutt, Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the Act in the Supreme Court.
• The Act was claimed to violate Art.14, Art.19(f), Art.25, and Art.26.
• Fundamental question: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
• Accompanying question: What are the limits of Parliament’s power to amend?

Constitutional Amendments

• 24th Amendment Act: Gave Parliament power to amend any Constitution provision, including Fundamental Rights.
• 25th Amendment Act: Allowed restriction of the Right to Property for public use.
• 29th Amendment Act: Included Land Reforms Act in the 9th Schedule, making it immune from judicial review.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Side

• Art.368 does not grant absolute power; it’s limited and restrictive.
• Amendments curtail fundamental rights, which is unconstitutional.

Respondent’s Side

• Unlimited power needed for social and economic reforms.
• Parliament should be allowed to impose restrictions on certain Fundamental Rights.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

• A 13-judge bench gave the judgment in a 7:6 majority.
• Overruled Golaknath case which restricted Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• Validated the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments with limitations.
• Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine:
  • Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
  • Indicative list of basic features provided.
  • Judiciary retains the power to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Conclusion

• The case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, safeguarding democracy.
• Parliament has wide powers but cannot alter the Constitution's core features.

This summary provides an overview of the Kesavananda Bharati case, highlighting its significance and impact on constitutional law.

For further details on the Basic Structure Doctrine, additional resources or videos are recommended.

Note: Always refer to the latest legal sources or textbooks for the most current understanding and interpretations of the case.