HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALAVARU versus STATE OF KERALA
Headnote
CONSTITUTION — AMENDMENT — BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE — Article 368 — Parliament's power to amend Constitution — Limitations — Basic structure doctrine — Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972 — Validity — Held, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Ninth Amendments valid. Section 2 of Twenty-Fifth Amendment valid. Section 3 of Twenty-Fifth Amendment invalid. Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is plenary but not unlimited; it cannot be used to damage or destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Basic structure includes supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, dignity and freedom of the individual. Article 13(2) does not bar constitutional amendments. Article 31(2) as amended by Section 2 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is valid, subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness, illusoriness, or lack of rational relationship between the amount and the property. Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment introducing Article 31C is invalid as it delegates amending power and abrogates fundamental rights. Twenty-Ninth Amendment is valid but Acts included in Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they abrogate basic structure.
Issue
1. Whether the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, is valid. 2. Whether Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, is valid. 3. Whether Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, introducing Article 31C, is valid. 4. Whether the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, is valid. 5. Whether the amending power under Article 368 is plenary and unlimited, or subject to inherent and implied limitations. 6. Whether Article 13(2) restricts the Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. 7. Whether the 'basic structure' or 'framework' of the Constitution can be amended or abrogated. 8. Whether Article 31(2), as amended by Section 2 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, permits arbitrary or illusory compensation, and the scope of judicial review thereof. 9. Whether Article 31C, introduced by Section 3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, is valid, particularly its provisions excluding judicial review and its effect on Fundamental Rights. 10. Whether Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule, as amended by the Twenty-Ninth Amendment, can protect laws that abrogate Fundamental Rights or the basic structure.
Facts
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, and the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972. These amendments, inter alia, altered Article 368 concerning Parliament's amending power, modified Article 31(2) regarding property acquisition, introduced Article 31C to protect laws giving effect to Directive Principles, and added certain Kerala Land Reforms Acts to the Ninth Schedule. The core issue revolved around the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights and the basic structure.
Holding
Held: (By Full Court) The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, and the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act are valid. By majority: The decision of the majority in Golaknath that the word "law" in Article 13(2) included amendments to the Constitution and that Article operated as a limitation upon the power to amend the Constitution in Article 368 is erroneous and is overruled. The power of amendment is plenary and includes the power to add, alter, or repeal provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. However, the power to amend does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. There are no inherent or implied limitations on the power of amendment under Article 368, except those inherent in the word 'amendment' itself. The first part of Article 31C is valid, but the second part, which ousts judicial review based on a declaration, is invalid. Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act is void as it delegates amending power.