Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) - the case that gave India the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE. Decided by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, the largest in its history, on 24 April 1973 by a 7:6 majority. It settled how far Parliament can go when it amends the Constitution. visit for the notes at this link https://thelaweasy.com/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala-1973-case-summary THE CASE His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. Supreme Court of India | 13-judge Constitution Bench | 24 April 1973 | Majority 7:6 Constitutional Law - Article 368, amending power of Parliament, basic structure doctrine THE BACKGROUND - Shankari Prasad (1951): a constitutional amendment is not "law" under Article 13, so Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. - Sajjan Singh (1965): the Supreme Court followed Shankari Prasad. - Golaknath (1967): an 11-judge bench, by 6:5, held that Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights at all, not even under Article 368. - Parliament's reply: the 24th Amendment (rewriting Article 368 to expressly give Parliament the "power" to amend any provision, adding a non-obstante clause and making the President's assent compulsory) and the 25th Amendment (adding Article 31C and curbing the right to property). THE FACTS Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala. When the Kerala Land Reforms Act allowed the State to take over land held by the mutt, he moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 on 21 March 1970. While the petition was pending, Kerala passed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971, and the case grew into a challenge to the limits of Parliament's amending power itself. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CLAIMED Article 25 (practise and propagate religion), Article 26 (manage religious affairs), Article 14 (equality), Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 (property). THE LEGAL ISSUES 1. Was the 24th Constitutional Amendment valid? 2. Was the 25th Constitutional Amendment valid? 3. Is there any limit on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution? THE JUDGMENT - A MIXED VERDICT - Parliament CAN amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Golaknath was overruled. - BUT the power is not unlimited: Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to damage or destroy its BASIC STRUCTURE. - The 24th Amendment was upheld in full. - The 25th Amendment was upheld in part: the first part of Article 31C was valid, but the second part, which barred courts from examining whether a law actually gave effect to the stated policy, was struck down as violating the basic structure. THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE Certain features are so fundamental that they form the identity of the Constitution and lie beyond Parliament's amending power: supremacy of the Constitution; the republican and democratic form of government; its secular character; separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary; and its federal character. Later judgments added free and fair elections, independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the dignity of the individual. The list is not closed. WHAT YOU WILL LEARN - The scope of Article 368 and its link with Article 13 - How Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh and Golaknath led to this case - What the 24th and 25th Amendments actually changed - How the 7:6 majority built the basic structure doctrine - An exam-ready answer for Judiciary, UPSC, PCS (J), CLAT PG and LLB CHAPTERS 0:00 Introduction: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 0:13 Where the story begins 0:32 The core question: can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? 0:43 The real doubt: is an amendment "law" under Article 13? 1:22 Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh and Golaknath 2:07 Golaknath (1967): Fundamental Rights made untouchable 2:47 The 24th Amendment: Article 368 rewritten 3:26 The word "power" and the non-obstante clause 4:25 Presidential assent made compulsory 4:55 The road to Kesavananda Bharati 5:35 The petitioner and the Kerala land reforms 6:25 The Fundamental Rights claimed 6:50 The case grows bigger: the 1971 Kerala Amendment Act 7:25 Three questions before the 13-judge bench 7:55 The judgment: a mixed verdict 8:59 The Basic Structure Doctrine, 24 April 1973 9:49 The middle path 10:26 What are the basic features? 11:29 The basic structure keeps growing 12:26 The two eras of Indian constitutional law WHY IT MATTERS Kesavananda Bharati ended the swing between "Parliament can amend everything" and "Parliament can amend nothing": Fundamental Rights can be amended, but not abolished; the Constitution can adapt, but its core identity is protected. Also discussed: Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965) and Golaknath (1967). Subscribe to Law Easy for simple explanations of landmark Indian judgments. Website: thelaweasy.com #KesavanandaBharati #BasicStructureDoctrine #Article368 #ConstitutionalLaw #IndianConstitution #SupremeCourtOfIndia #LawEasy #LegalEducation #Judiciary #UPSC #CLAT #llbentranceexam