Introduction
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the monumental judgments in Indian constitutional history which established the Basic Structure Doctrine-a rule that curbs the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The decision marked a watershed in the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature to protect the basic features of the Constitution from destruction.
Background
Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a religious mutt in Kerala and was aggrieved by attempts on the part of the Kerala government to put restrictive fetters on the management of his property under state land reforms. A petition under Article 26 of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom to manage property held by a religious denomination or a section thereof quickly aggrandized into a wider constitutional question involving the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
Judgement and Basic Structure Doctrine
By a majority, the Supreme Court, in a judgment by a 13-judge bench-the largest bench ever to sit in the Court-gave its unanimous conclusion that even though Parliament had wide powers to amend the Constitution, it could not destroy or emasculate its "basic structure." These salient features, essential to the Constitution, included the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and fundamental rights. The judgment thus was a balancing act: while allowing amendments, it impeded deletions and changes that would rub off the Constitution's basic intent.
Impact and Significance
The decision in Kesavananda Bharati has been the foundational precedent for constitutional jurisprudence in India. It prevented Parliament from acquiring absolute constituent powers to amend the Constitution and, thereby, it ensured that the accrued concept of democratic governance and basic freedoms did not get too bruised. The Basic Structure Doctrine has since been invoked variously in a line of decisions, to invalidate those amendments which had the tendency to mutilate the Constitution beyond recognition including judicial independence and changes to secularism.
Legacy
The Kesavananda Bharati case firmly established the judiciary as the sentinel of the Constitution. The judgment also explained that without judicial review, constitutional supremacy could not be sustained and the individual's rights would be in jeopardy. By confirming there were aspects in the Constitution that could not be amended, the judgment has protected the democratic and secular identity of India from potential legislative overreach.
Post a Comment