Keshavanand Bharati Case: Q. Write A Case Comment On Keshavanand Bharti V/s State of Kerala. Ans
Keshavanand Bharati Case: Q. Write A Case Comment On Keshavanand Bharti V/s State of Kerala. Ans
Keshavanand Bharati Case: Q. Write A Case Comment On Keshavanand Bharti V/s State of Kerala. Ans
Ans >
Swami Kesavananda Bharti was the Senior Head of Edneer Mutt, District
Kasaragod, Kerala. The religious sector that he headed owned certain
lands.
The Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 and its amendment in 1969 required
those lands to be acquired by the state government in order to fulfill their
socio-economic obligations.
State invoked its authority under Article 21 i.e.No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Further the petition contended that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in
a way they want to as they have a limited power to do so. The Parliament cannot
exercise its power to amend the constitution by changing its basic structure as
the same was propounded by Justice Mudhokar in the case of Sajjan Singh v/s
State of Rajasthan. The petitioner pleaded for the protection of his property
under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.
The government had done no wrong by exercising its powers under Article 21
of the constitution which states that - No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Article 368 which grants the parliament a power to make formal amendments
and empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition,
variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down.
It was laid down by the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be followed
by the Parliament while amending the provisions of the Constitution.
Discussion :
Through this landmark judgement the Supreme Court answered e main
question - was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited ?
In the early 1970s, the government of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had
enacted major amendments to the Constitution to get over the judgments of
the Supreme Court in RC Cooper (1970 - , the court had struck down Indira
Gandhi’s bank nationalisation policy), Madhavrao Scindia (1970- it had
annulled the abolition of privy purses of former rulers. ) and the earlier
mentioned Golaknath (1967- Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme
Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the
Fundamental Rights in the Constitution).
The court found that the word ‘amend’ which was included in Article 368 does not
refer to amendments that can change the basic structure of the constitution. If
Parliament wants to amend a particular provision of the Constitution then such
amendment would need to go through the test of basic structure.
The Bench raised valid concerns that if the Parliament would be provided with
unlimited power to amend our Indian Constitution then the power will be misused
and would be changed by the Government according to its own will and preferences.
There was a need for a doctrine to preserve the rights of both Parliament and
citizens, therefore, the Bench came up with a midway to protect both of their rights
through the doctrine of Basic Structure.
Conclusion
Indian Constitution is not a mere political document rather it is a social
document based on a social philosophy. Every philosophy like religion contains
features that are basic and circumstantial. While the former cannot be altered the
latter can have changes just like the core values of a religion cannot change but the
practices associated with it may change as per needs & requirements. The bench
was fearful that if the Parliament is given unrestricted amending power then a
political party with a two-third majority in Parliament, for a few years, could make
any change in the Constitution even to the extent of repealing it to suit its own
preferences. However, the bench was also conscious of the poverty and social
backwardness lurking in the nation & to eradicate this state of poverty and social
backwardness the Parliament would need some sort of tool. Therefore, keeping both
extreme contentions in its mind, the court propounded Basic Structure theory
through which a honest Parliament can bring all the required changes needed and at
the same time check a malicious & power greedy conglomerate of politicians.