Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edaneer Mutt in Kerala’s Kasaragod district, passed away on September 6. He was 79. 

In 1973, the legal fight between Kesavananda Bharati and the state government led to the landmark decision of the Supreme Court that led to the propounding of the basic structure doctrine, which has been interpreted to mean that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

The verdict became the basis of setting aside several constitutional amendments.

What was the case about?

Bharati had petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the Kerala government’s move to impose restrictions on the Mutt’s property. A 13-judge bench of the apex court, which was the full strength of the court at that time, heard the case for a record 69 days, from October 31, 1972 to March 23, 1973. 

The bench headed by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri declared that while Parliament has wide powers, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

The landmark decision came to be popularly known as the ‘Kesavananda Bharati judgment’ and through it was born the basic structure doctrine that has come to be regarded as an integral aspect of the Constitution.

The seer had challenged the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and three amendments to the Constitution — 24th, 25th and 29th. He had contended that the legislation and the amendments violated his fundamental right to practice and propagate religion, freedom of religious denomination, including managing and administering his property and his right to property.

Most significant was the court’s ruling on the 24th amendment to the Constitution. The amendment, which was made in 1971, had empowered the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution. The amendment had been carried out to negate the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, in which the court had ruled that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way which cuts short or takes away the fundamental rights.

While the court upheld the Parliament’s power to make constitutional amendments under Article 368, it threw in the condition that the amendments made should not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court ruled that the Parliament cannot destroy or alter the basic features of the Constitution. But it did not define what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution, leaving it open to interpretation. 

The verdict referred in other cases

Several subsequent judgments relied on the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments brought about by the Parliament.

The basic structure doctrine was invoked by the court in the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, in which there was a challenge to Article 329A, introduced in the Constitution through the 39th amendment in 1975. The amendment was an attempt to take Indira’s election in 1971 beyond judicial purview. The court struck down certain clauses in Article 329A, making the existing election law applicable to the election of the prime minister.

It was again referred to while deciding the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, in which the constitutionality of the 42nd amendment, carried out by the Indira Gandhi government in response to the Kesavananda Bharati case, was challenged. Certain sections of the Article were struck down by the court as they were held to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

More recently, the basic structure doctrine was invoked by the court as it struck down the law passed by the Parliament for the setting up of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC). A five-member bench held the law as unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution, which it said, includes the independence of the judiciary.

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment continues to have a profound impact on jurisprudence and is pivotal to the delicate balance of powers between the court and the Parliament.

This article originally appeared in The Week.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store