Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
INTRODUCTION
Eleven days before the pledge-taking his Holiness Swami Kesavananda Bharati
Sripadagalvaru lodged a case in the Supreme Court whose outcome would profoundly affect
the countrys democratic processes.1 A month after the hearings concluded, on April 24, 1973
in Chief Justice Sikris courtroom the thirteen judges delivered eleven judgments and what
came to be called a statement signed by nine of the judges. The statement began, The
view of the majority in these writ petitions is as follows.2 The essence of the view of the
majority was that Article 368 did not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution.3
According to Granville Austin, The benchs glory was in its decision, not in the manner of
arriving at it, which reflected ill of itself and on the judiciary as an institution In
Kesavananda, the Court emerged as victorious asserting its institutional role vis--vis
Parliament in constitutional matters and strengthening its power of judicial review through
the basic structure doctrine4
This view of the majority is the law of India, clearly and emphatically expressed. 5 This
basic structure doctrine is fairly said to have become the bedrock of the constitutional
interpretation in India.6
The paper primarily revolves around the question whether basic structure doctrine was the
ratio of Kesavananda Bharati case or it was the stratagem of pronouncing the view of the
majority by Chief Justice Sikri that gave basic structure doctrine the effect of a ratio? The
paper analyses eleven opinions delivered by thirteen judges and their critique by various
jurists and legal luminaries along with the inputs from the author.
1
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 258
(1999).
2
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 1007.
3
Kesavananda Bharati & Others v. State of Kerala & Others, (1973) 4 SCC 225, 1007 (2); GRANVILLE AUSTIN,
WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 264 (1999);
4
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 258
(1999).
5
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 265
(1999).
6
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 258
(1999).
1|Page
WHETHER
BASIC
STRUCTURE
DOCTRINE
WAS
THE
RATIO
OF
KESAVANANDA BHARATI ?
Prof. Upendra Baxi remarked, Kesavananda Bharati creates many paradoxes. Although it is
in the ultimate analysis a judicial decision, it is not just a reported case on some Articles of
the Indian Constitution. Indeed, it is in some sense, the Indian Constitution of the future. 7
The most important and standard application of the Kesavananda Bharati is the proposition
stated in view of the majority that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the
Constitution and hence, it is critical to examine whether there was a ratio to that effect
derived from the 11 judgments delivered in the case on April 24, 1973.
It may not be out of place understand what is meant by ratio decidendi. The expression has
been described as, any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the Judge as
necessary step in reaching his conclusion, having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by
him8
The eleven judgments delivered by the thirteen judges with respect to their observations
regarding power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 are as follows.
Upendra Baxi, The Constitutional Quicksands of Kesavananda Bharati and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,
(1974) 1 SCC (Jour) 45, 45.
8
Joseph Minattur, The Ratio in Kesavananda Bharati Case, (1974) 1 SCC (Jour) 73, 73.
9
(1973) 4 SCC 225.
10
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 346-349, paras 210-223; (1973) 4 SCC 225, 365, para 284.
11
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 405, para 475 (c).
2|Page
even if the amending power includes the power to amend Article 13(2),
a question not decided in Golak Nath case, the power is not so wide so as to
include the power to abrogate or take away the fundamental freedoms;
12
3|Page
16
4|Page
The power of amendment under Article 368 does not include the power
to abrogate the Constitution nor does it include the power to alter the basic
structure or framework of the Constitution.
(ix)
amendment apart from those which inhere and are implicit in the word
amendment.
21
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 767, para 1426; (1973) 4 SCC 225, 776, para 1445.
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 776-777, paras 1444, 1446, 1477.
23
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 784, para 1464.
24
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 787, para 1471.
25
(1973) 4 SCC 225, 824, paras (vii) & (ix).
22
5|Page
26
6|Page
(2) The word amendment in Article 368 is broad enough to authorise the
varying, repealing or abrogating of each and every provision in the Constitution
including Part III.
(3) There are no inherent and implied limitations on the amending power in
Article 368.
The eleven judgments delivered by the thirteen judges with respect to their observations
regarding power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 can be classified
into three categories, namely, judgments identifying inherent and implied limitation under
Article 368; judgments identifying no limitations on amending power under Article 368 and
judgment delivered by Justice Khanna which belong to neither of the above category.
32
7|Page
The judgments delivered by Chief Justice Sikri, Justices Shelat and Grover, Hegde and
Mukherjea and Jagannathan Reddy belonged to the first category and they held that the
amending power was limited by various inherent and implied limitations in the Constitution
including Fundamental Rights. Six other judges Justices A.N. Ray, Palekar, Mathew,
Dwivedi, Beg, and Chandrachud belonged to second category and in six separate judgments
held that there were no limitations on the amending power of Parliament. The judgment
delivered by Justice Khanna belonged to neither of the above category, expressly rejected the
view of the six Sikri-led judges that there were inherent or implied limitations on the
amending power. Justice Khanna held that the amending power was plenary in every sense,
but the word amendment in Article 368 by its limited connotation did not lend itself to
abrogating the Constitution. Any amendment to the Constitution had necessarily to retain
the basic structure and framework of the Constitution after the amendment and cannot have
the effect of destroying or abrogating the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.35
On closer analysis of the judgments delivered by Sikri-led judges who held that the amending
power was limited by various inherent and implied limitations in the Constitution, did not
refer to basic structure doctrine. They in their conclusions observed that Article 368 did not
include the power to damage, abrogate, emasculate, destroy, or change or alter the
basic features/elements fundamental features, or framework of the Constitution.36 The
term basic structure was used only by Justice Khanna, which was lifted by Chief Justice
Sikri and adopted in his view of the majority.37
Immediately after the case was decided, Palkhivala the leading counsel who had appeared for
the Petitioners analyzed the judgements of the Kesavananda case wrote, Six judges decided
the case in favour of the citizen and six in favour of the State. Justice Khanna agreed with
none of these 12 judges and decided the case midway between the two conflicting viewpoints.
Thus by a strange quirk of fate the judgment of Justice Khanna with whom none of the other
judges agreed has become the law of the land.38
35
T. R. ANDHYARUJINA, THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY
SUPREME COURT AND PARLIAMENT 42 (2011).
36
SUDHIR KRISHNASWAMY, DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE DOCTRINE 27 (2009).
37
T. R. ANDHYARUJINA, THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY
BY SUPREME COURT AND PARLIAMENT 47 (2011).
38
Nani A. Palkhivala, Fundamental Rights Case: Comment, (1973) 4 SCC (Jour) 57, 59.
BY
8|Page
This view of the majority and specifically, basic structure doctrine has become the law of
the law, and hence, inevitably regarded as the ratio of Kesavananda Bharti case. The view
of the majority, itself, was discredited by Seervai and Rajiv Dhavan along with many others.
Seervai believed, there was an unbridgeable gap between the concepts and lines of
reasoning of Justice Khanna and the six judges.39 He further submitted that the summary
signed by nine judges has no legal effect at all- this even in the revision of his book in which
he accepted Kesavananda as law.40 Rajeev Dhavan observed that even the nine judges who
subscribed to some versions of the doctrine of implied limits did not do so for the same
reasons.41
In judgment subsequent to Kesavananda Bharati, no attempt was made to find the ratio of
the case. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain,43 Chief Justice Ray observed, It should be stated
39
T. R. ANDHYARUJINA, THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY
SUPREME COURT AND PARLIAMENT 47 (2011).
40
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 268
(1999).
41
SUDHIR KRISHNASWAMY, DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE BASIC
STRUCTURE DOCTRINE 27 (2009).
42
T. R. ANDHYARUJINA, THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY
BY SUPREME COURT AND PARLIAMENT 56 (2011).
43
(1975) Suppl. SCC 1.
BY
9|Page
here that the hearing has proceeded on the assumption that it is not necessary to challenge
the majority view in Kesavananda Bharati case 44
Chief Justice Chandrachud, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India45 observed, The summary of
the various judgements in Kesavananda Bharati was signed by nine out of the thirteen
Judges. Paragraph 2 of the summary reads to say that according to the majority, Article
368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution. Whether or not the summary is a legitimate part of the judgement, or is per
incuriam for the scholarly reasons cited by authors, it is undeniable that it correctly reflects
the majority view.46
Justice Bhagwati in his separate opinion in Minerva Mills v. Union of India47observed that
the view of the majority in Kesavananda Bharati case has no legal effect, however, he
proceeded on the basis of the view taken in Indira Gandhi case as regards the ratio of the
majority decision in Kesavananda Bharti case.48
Subsequent judgments have ritualistically repeated that Kesavananda Bharati had held that
the amending power of Parliament was limited by the basic structure of the Constitution
without examining whether there was a ratio to this effect from the eleven judgments in the
case. 49 Granville Austin says that in this way the nine judges performed an act of
statesmanship, even of legerdemain.50
44
10 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
Technically, it is hard to decipher the ratio of Kesavananda Bharati and so is to accept the
fact, that view of majority was indeed the ratio of the case. In spite of the severe criticism
of the so-called view of the majority, the acceptance of basic structure doctrine in cases
subsequent to Kesavananda Bharati this view of the majority is the law of India, clearly and
emphatically expressed. In words of Granville Austin, the basic structure doctrine is fairly
said to have become the bedrock of the constitutional interpretation in India.
11 | P a g e
REFERENCES
CASES
i.
ii.
iii.
BOOKS
i.
OF THE
iii.
IN INDIA:
A STUDY
(2009).
OF
ARTICLES
i.
Joseph Minattur, The Ratio in Kesavananda Bharati Case, (1974) 1 SCC (Jour) 73.
ii.
K. Subba Rao, The Two Judgments: Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati, (1973) 2
SCC (Jour) 1.
iii.
Nani A. Palkhivala, Fundamental Rights Case: Comment, (1973) 4 SCC (Jour) 57.
iv.
v.
12 | P a g e