Kesavananda Bharati v. state of Kerala: The most
appreciated page in the constitutional history
Yes, the very first case which
every law student hear in their law school let’s know something beyond the
facts of the case.
24th April, 1973 a historic day in our constitutional history, the day we got the savior
doctrine of our constitution, the savior of the rule of law and fundamental rights, the
day we got assured that democracy will not be getting converted into a Wishlist for one person (their were clear symptoms of this by the amendments made by Indira Gandhi
government). This case was almost climax in the war of supremacy between
judiciary and the legislature.
Case was decided by a 13 judge bench
(largest bench constituted till now) but the case was won by wafer thin
majority of 7:6, it was Justice Khanna’s decision (little more than half in the
favour of petitioner) else the situation would have been totally different.
Verdict of Golaknath case was to be
reviewed and various constitutional amendments were also challenged like 24th,
25th, 26th and 29th amendment, to be precise
the main question was does amending power of parliament includes the power to
rewrite the constitution? Or say does parliament’s amending power has any limit
or not?
Mrs. Gandhi got almost 350 seats out
of 540 seats after her outstanding victory in the election of 1971 (yes, the
same election with the slogans of ‘Indira hatao’ and ‘garibi hatao’) so it is
very easy for such government to pass any amendment like the present government
but Mrs. Gandhi exploited her position.
Advocate representing petitioner was Nani Palkhivala, one of the best lawyers known as courtroom genius with Setalvad
style of advocacy(brief and logical). It is said that a good advocate
strengthens the dignity of the court and he proved it, he had Soli Sorabjee, Anil
Divan, Popat, Ravinder Narain and several other lawyers who collectively made
this happen they worked together with great strength unlike opposition Seervai
and Niren De.
Kesavananda who challenged the Kerala land
reform act was never aware that name will become immortal, in reality he never
met Palkhivala, he only saw his name appearing in the head lines of many news
papers.
Many notable arguments were presented
by Palkhivala :
- one of the best example he quoted was of Hitler
that he had been allowed to amend the constitution and the world knows what
followed.
- Article 368 doesn’t mentions expressly any
limitations on amending power of the constitution but what is left unsaid is as
important as "what is said", "what is implied" is as much a part of the instrument
as what is expressed. "Parliament's will" can’t be always equated with "people
wills".
- Article 368 should not be read as ,"expressing the death wish
of the constitution or as a provision for it’s legal suicide”.
Dwivedi ,a strong supporter of government ,came
with an open offer to Palkhivala ,”Are you prepared to say that the fundamental
right to property can be amended? If so I am prepared to procure form
parliament that all other fundamental rights can be left unamended”.
There were many incidents which
happened and is not considered genuine like Justice Mirza Hameed Ullah Beg, a pro government judge fall ill in March, 1973. It was believed that it was just a trick to delay
judgement as Sikri was to be retired, after his retirement the case will be reheard so that the
judgement will be in accordance with the government but history has been
approved whenever a person retires from his office he desire of doing something
heroic and memorable just like CJI Dipak Misra did resolving Sabrimala temple
case, making adultery as non criminal and many other important cases. Same was
the case with CJI Sikri, he was to be retired on the very next day of passing
the judgement of Kesavananda Bharati case on 24th April 1973.
Jaganmohan Reddy said in his
autobiography that the case was of political nature, ”I got the impression(from the first
day)that minds were closed and views
were determined”.
CJI Sikri , Justice Shelat Grover, Justice Hedge, Justice Reddy and Justice Mukherjee held at constitution had limited power to amend the constitution.
Justice Ray, Justice Palekar, Justice Mathew, Justice Mirza Hameed Ullah Beg, Justice Mirza Hameed Ullah Beg Dwivedi
and Justice Chandrachud held parliament has unlimited amending power, Justice Khanna was also of
the same view but in later part while dealing with Article 31C, held that basic
structure can’t be altered through parliament amending powers.
Finally the judgement overruled
Golaknath case and held that parliament has limited amending powers, it can’t
alter the basic structure of Indian constitution. Basic structure includes
democratic government ,secular character, supremacy of constitution, federal
character, separation of power, etc. Rest will be defined from time to time
according to the need.
This was more than enough impediment
to ignite the government which was leading towards dictatorship. Now the move of
parliament was awaited after the turn of judiciary. It came firstly in the form of appointing Justice Ray as CJI by
breaking the convention of appointing senior most judge as CJI Justice Ray
superseded Shelat, Hegde and Grover (yes they were against the government).
42nd constitutional amendment act
1976 was passed to limit the power of Supreme Court and High court.
Apart from all this today also basic
structure doctrine acts as a yardstick for the constitutional interpretation it
has done many wonders one of its remarkable wonder is that it declared 39th
constitutional amendment act,1975 as unconstitutional which was brought to
nullify the Allahabad HC judgment against Indira. It made election of president
vice-president, prime minister and speaker non-challengeable in any court.
Later attempt was made to review Kesavananda
judgement or let's say judiciary was trying to loose whatever dignity was left (a step
ahead to committee judiciary).
On 10th of November 1975, 13 judge bench assembled to
hear the case a day before Palkhivala wrote a personal letter to
Indira, Andhyarujina remarked this letter as 'doubtful propriety’,
Palkhivala congratulated her for a success of appeal against the
Allahabad HC judgement and said ,"after you who will be able to hold the entire
country together states will fight for greater autonomy, so how can we give
unrestricted power to the parliament".
"India is politically more stable than
Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon and they almost got independence together, greatest credit
for this achievement goes to you and your father Nehru and said that your can
save the constitution."
As expected Indira ignored the letter.
Palkhivala came argued on the day of review
which counted among the golden hours of the advocacy of Palkhivala.
It was pointed by Ray that there is
need for review as the request came from the petitioner. "Ever since Kesavananda
case has been decided we have been flooded with the request for review."
Even the Tamil Nadu government asked
for review. And all the things were proved false and Palkhivala argued "we are not a
debating society that we argue in order to reaffirm a judgment" .
In the history Palkhivala will be
marked as a savior of the Indian constitution and the Justice Ray will be
remarked as the one who presided over the darkest period of the constitution.
by- Swati Mishra
(Co-founder of The Bay of Law)