The Constitutional Questions Raised in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the Answers Given by the Supreme Court (Part-2)
The decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was not confined to a dispute concerning land reforms or the property of a religious institution. It raised some of the most fundamental constitutional questions ever considered by the Supreme Court of India. The Court was called upon to determine the true nature of Parliament's constituent power, the relationship between constitutional amendments and Fundamental Rights, the scope of judicial review, and the extent to which Parliament could alter the Constitution. The answers provided by the Court continue to govern Indian constitutional law even today. Every student of Constitutional Law should understand these questions because they explain not only the outcome of the case but also the constitutional philosophy that emerged from it.
**Question No. 1
Whether Parliament has the power to amend every provision of the Constitution?**
One of the principal issues before the Court was whether Article 368 empowered Parliament to amend every part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. This issue arose because the Supreme Court, in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), had previously held that Parliament had no authority to amend Fundamental Rights. In response, Parliament enacted the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment declaring that its amending power extended to every provision of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that Parliament indeed possesses the constituent power to amend every provision of the Constitution, including Part III dealing with Fundamental Rights. The Court observed that a Constitution must remain capable of adapting itself to changing social, economic, and political conditions. Therefore, constitutional amendments are both necessary and legitimate. In this respect, the Court overruled the restrictive view adopted in Golak Nath.
**Question No. 2
Whether Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is unlimited?**
This was the central constitutional issue in the entire case. The Union Government argued that Article 368 conferred absolute and unlimited constituent power upon Parliament. According to the Government, there was no express limitation in the Constitution restricting Parliament's authority to amend any provision.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that although Parliament's amending power is extensive, it is not unlimited. Parliament may amend, modify, add to, or repeal constitutional provisions, but it cannot destroy or alter the Basic Structure or the essential identity of the Constitution. This conclusion became the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has since become one of the most important principles of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
**Question No. 3
Whether a Constitutional Amendment is "Law" within the meaning of Article 13?**
Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void. A significant constitutional question was whether a Constitutional Amendment itself constitutes "law" for the purposes of Article 13.
The Court held that a Constitutional Amendment is not an ordinary law enacted in the exercise of legislative power. Instead, it is made in the exercise of Parliament's constituent power under Article 368. Consequently, Constitutional Amendments are not directly controlled by Article 13. However, the Court clarified that although Article 13 does not invalidate Constitutional Amendments, every amendment remains subject to the limitation imposed by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
**Question No. 4
Whether there exists a Basic Structure of the Constitution which Parliament cannot destroy?**
Perhaps the most historic issue before the Court was whether the Constitution contains certain fundamental features that are beyond Parliament's amending power. The Government argued that since the Constitution nowhere uses the expression "Basic Structure," no such implied limitation could exist.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that every Constitution possesses certain essential characteristics that constitute its identity. Although the Constitution does not expressly define these features, they can be identified by examining its scheme, philosophy, objectives, and underlying principles. Parliament cannot exercise its amending power in a manner that destroys these essential features. This principle became known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, the most significant constitutional contribution of the judgment.
**Question No. 5
Whether the Preamble forms part of the Constitution?**
Another important issue concerned the constitutional status of the Preamble. Earlier, in the Berubari Union Advisory Opinion (1960), the Supreme Court had expressed the view that the Preamble was not an integral part of the Constitution.
In Kesavananda Bharati, the Court reconsidered this question and held that the Preamble is indeed an integral part of the Constitution. Although the Preamble does not confer independent powers or limitations, it reflects the philosophy, objectives, and ideals of the Constitution and serves as an important guide in constitutional interpretation. The Court also relied upon the Preamble while identifying certain features forming part of the Basic Structure.
**Question No. 6
Whether Fundamental Rights can be amended?**
The petitioners argued that Fundamental Rights constitute the soul of the Constitution and therefore cannot be amended under any circumstances.
The Supreme Court rejected this absolute proposition. It held that Fundamental Rights are amendable under Article 368. However, any amendment affecting Fundamental Rights must satisfy the test of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Parliament may modify Fundamental Rights, but it cannot abolish or destroy those aspects of Fundamental Rights that form part of the Constitution's basic framework.
**Question No. 7
Whether Judicial Review can be abolished by a Constitutional Amendment?**
An important constitutional concern before the Court was whether Parliament could amend the Constitution in such a manner as to eliminate the power of judicial review.
The Supreme Court held that Judicial Review constitutes one of the essential features of the Constitution. Without judicial review, there would be no effective mechanism for enforcing constitutional limitations or protecting Fundamental Rights. Therefore, Parliament cannot abolish or substantially destroy judicial review through a Constitutional Amendment.
**Question No. 8
Whether the Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment was constitutionally valid?**
The Twenty-fourth Amendment expressly affirmed Parliament's constituent power to amend every provision of the Constitution and made it obligatory for the President to give assent to Constitutional Amendment Bills.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment. The Court held that Parliament does possess constituent power under Article 368. However, this power remains subject to the limitation imposed by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
**Question No. 9
Whether the Twenty-fifth Constitutional Amendment was valid?**
The Twenty-fifth Amendment sought to reduce judicial scrutiny over laws enacted to implement certain Directive Principles and weakened the constitutional protection of property rights.
The Supreme Court upheld the amendment only in part. While recognising Parliament's authority to pursue socio-economic reforms, the Court struck down those provisions that attempted to exclude judicial review completely. It held that Parliament cannot place Constitutional Amendments beyond judicial scrutiny.
**Question No. 10
Whether the Twenty-ninth Constitutional Amendment was valid?**
The Twenty-ninth Amendment placed the Kerala Land Reforms Acts in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from constitutional challenge.
The Supreme Court upheld the amendment but simultaneously laid down an important constitutional principle. It observed that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule would not automatically become immune from judicial review if they damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This principle was subsequently clarified and expanded in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
The Constitutional Conclusions Reached by the Supreme Court
The judgment ultimately established several constitutional principles that continue to govern Indian constitutional law. Parliament possesses wide constituent power under Article 368 and may amend every provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. However, this power is limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Preamble forms an integral part of the Constitution and serves as an important guide in constitutional interpretation. Judicial Review remains an indispensable feature of the constitutional framework and cannot be abolished. Constitutional Amendments are not ordinary laws within the meaning of Article 13, yet they remain subject to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was upheld, the Twenty-fifth Amendment was upheld only in part, and the Twenty-ninth Amendment was sustained subject to constitutional limitations.
The essence of the judgment may therefore be expressed in a single constitutional proposition:
Parliament has the power to amend every provision of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter, destroy, or abrogate the Basic Structure or the essential identity of the Constitution.
This proposition represents the Ratio Decidendi of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and remains the most authoritative statement of law governing Constitutional Amendments in India.
No comments:
Post a Comment