Question

Consider the following statements regarding the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):

1. It established that constitutional amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. It upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which made the President’s assent to amendment bills mandatory.

3. It ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended under any circumstances.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• A. 1 and 2 only
• B. 1 only
• C. 2 and 3 only
• D. All of the above

Answer 1

Answer:

A. 1 and 2 only

The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• The Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. case, decided on April 24, 1973, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that significantly shaped the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• It was heard by the largest-ever Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising 13 judges, who delivered a split verdict of 7:6.
• The case primarily challenged the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

• The most pivotal outcome of this judgment was the enunciation of the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Constitution.
• This doctrine holds that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its 'basic structure' or 'essential features'.
• The Supreme Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, leaving it to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, elements like the supremacy of the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, republican form of government, secular character, federal character, independence of the judiciary, judicial review, and welfare state have generally been considered part of it.
• This doctrine effectively placed a substantive limitation on the amending power of Parliament under Article 368.

Upholding the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act

• The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, was introduced to nullify the effect of the Golaknath case (1967), which had held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
• This amendment explicitly stated that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and added clause (4) to Article 13 (making it clear that constitutional amendments are not 'laws' under Article 13) and clause (3) to Article 368 (making it mandatory for the President to give assent to a constitutional amendment bill).
• The Kesavananda Bharati case upheld the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, affirming Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. However, it simultaneously imposed the 'basic structure' limitation on this power.

Amendment of Fundamental Rights

• Contrary to the third statement, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment did not rule that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended under any circumstances.
• Instead, it clarified that Parliament *can* amend Fundamental Rights, but such an amendment must not violate or alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
• This decision partially overruled the Golaknath case (1967), which had held that Fundamental Rights were 'transcendental and immutable' and could not be amended by Parliament.

Subsequent Developments

• The Basic Structure Doctrine was reaffirmed and applied in subsequent cases, most notably in the Minerva Mills case (1980), which further solidified the concept of judicial review as a basic feature.