KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973)
The case of Kesavananda Bharati is viewed as one of the main landmark decisions of our nation characterizing the doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.The doctrine says that the Parliament of the nation has limitless ability to correct the constitution subject to the condition that such revision ought not acquire change the essential construction of the Constitution, similar to the basic privileges of residents. Through the current case, the Supreme Court has cautiously deciphered the doctrine and investigates when a specific change is said to abuse the essential design of the Constitution of India. For has overruled the past choice of the court in the Golaknath case and set a restriction on the wide force of the parliament on amending the constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the Kerala seer from Edneer Mutt whose property privileges case in the Supreme Court , tested the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, scrutinizing the Kerala government's endeavours, under two-state land change acts, to force restrictions on the administration of its (mutt) property. Bharati additionally tested three Constitutional changes - the 24th, 25th and 26th revisions - presented by the Indira Gandhi government.
ISSUES IN THE CASE
Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is constitutionally valid or not?
What is the extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the constitution?
It was held by the Supreme Court by a greater part of 7:6 that Parliament can alter any arrangement of the Constitution to satisfy its financial commitments ensured to the residents under the Preamble subject to the condition that such correction won't change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court maintained the 24th Constitutional Amendment completely yet the first and second piece of the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act was viewed as intra vires and ultra vires individually. It was seen by the court corresponding to the powers of the Parliament to correct the Constitution that it was an inquiry that was left unanswered on account of Golaknath. The solution to the inquiry was found in the Bharathi case and it was reasoned by the court that the Parliament has the ability to correct the Constitution to the degree that such alteration doesn't change the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It was set somewhere around the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be trailed by the Parliament while amending the arrangements of the Constitution.
Esteemed jurist and illustrious advocate Nani Palkhivala and the seven judges on the majority bench in Keshavantha Bharathi Case believed that by issuing this decision, they had protected Indian democracy, for which our revered ancestors had fought so valiantly. The most significant result of the freedom struggle was democracy, which gave ordinary citizens who were most oppressed the power and rights. If the bench had ruled differently, the rights and authority for which our esteemed freedom fighters battled so valiantly would have withered away. Thus, this momentous judgement upheld the constitutional values, strengthened the foundation of the Constitution and restored the confidence of the common people in the judiciary and in a democracy. The Kesavanand Bharti decision forms the most powerful and binding precedent in the history of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine is used to determine the constitutional validity of any amendment or act of the Parliament. According to former Chief Justice of India Sarv Mittra Sikri, the following elements constitute the basic structure of the Constitution or fundamental features of the Constitution, or what was laid down as the Basic Structure Doctrine:
1) Supremacy of the Constitution
2) Republican and democratic form of government
3) Secular character of the Constitution
4) Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
5) Federal character of the Constitution.
In simple words, the Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule that states that certain provisions of the Constitution that are so fundamental to the values, objectives and sole of the Constitution cannot be amended under any circumstances.