Contentions of the Petitioners
The arguments of the petitioners on this case meant that it was centred at challenging constitutionality for 24 Amendment Act, 1971 and also 25 Amendment Act, both guided in intervening year with motif to remit Parliament’s chances. The petitioners, including Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged the unrestricted power of Indian Parliament to amend its Constitution through Article 368.
Here are some of the key contentions made by the petitioners:
- Doctrine of Basic Structure: The petitioners introduced the idea of “Basic Structure” in terms to the Constitution. They stated that certain fundamental characteristics and norms constitute the essence of constitutionality. The petitioners state that these items cannot be amended or modified by the Parliament’s making power.
- Implied Limitations on Amending Power: The petitioners argued that although parliament was empowered by Article 368 to amend the constitution, there were implied limitations on this power. They claimed that the power to amend is not encompassed with the ability to destroy or void of abrogating by Constitution’s fundamental character
- Preservation of Fundamental Rights: To protect the fundamental rights, it was stated that any amendment which would infringe upon or take away these basic rights is against the constitution. They contended that fundamental rights formed the core of Constitution’s basic structure.
- Judicial Review: They advocated for the role of judiciary in reviewing constitutional amendments. They argued that the judiciary could decide if an amendment was contrary to Constitution’s basic structure and, in case it did so, considered unconstitutional.
- Balance of Powers: The petitioners emphasized the need to preserve a separation of power between three major branches—the legislature, executive and judiciary. They held that any move by the Parliament to centralize all-powerful powers, especially at the cost of judicial institutions would jeopardize constitutional equilibrium.
- Amendments Violating Federal Structure: The petitioners argued that certain amendments, in particular the ones which changed federal structure of the Constitution could be considered to be unconstitutional. They contended the federal character of its constitution was integral to it’s basic framework.
Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973
Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Kesavananda Bharati Case is an important development in India’s constitutional history and also influenced how the Indian Consitution was shaped and interpreted, as well as used. This case which is now known as Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others vs State of Kerala & Another was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. The case largely revolved around a basic question of how much Parliament could amend the Constitution, especially as regards its ‘basic structure’.
Let us learn more about the Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973!
Kesavananda Bharati Case vs State of Kerala 1973