Role Of Judicial Activism In Kesavanda Bharti Vs State Of Kerala

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:00:36.568+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:30.540Z

ROLE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN KESAVANDA BHARTI

VS STATE OF KERALA1

Khushee Sabharwal, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT

The court case that made history in Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the landmarks in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence where the Supreme Court had described the boundaries of the amending power of Parliament. This case was a result of the challenge to the land reform legislation and the constitutionality of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. By a slender majority of 7:6, the Court declared the Doctrine of Basic Structure whereby it stated that although parliament had the power to amend the constitution under article 368, it could not alter its basic structure. The case is an example of judicial activism exercised by judicial review increases constitutional supremacy, separation of power, and rule of law.

This case study explores the context, problems, court reasoning as well as judicial activism and the difference between judicial activism and judicial overreach, as a constitutional guardian.

1 Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT

1461 INTRODUCTION

Judicial activism is exercised by the judiciary when the decisions it makes are influenced by personal opinions rather than usual practice of referring to precedents or previous judgements. Judicial review is an integral part of judicial activism. Judicial review is defined under Article

132 of the Indian constitution as the power by virtue of which judiciary can declare any law

inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution as void. Judicial activism emerged in the background of corruption in the organs of the government, inefficiency in the functioning of executive which led to delay and multiple public interest litigations which brought the grave and important issues concerning ordinary public to the fore and indicated failure in imparting justice.

BACKGROUND

OF THE CASE

One case in which manifestation of judicial activism is prominent is Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala3.(1973). Kesavananda Bharti was the chief of a religious sect called Edneer Mutt who owned land in Kasaragod district of Kerala. • The Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act of 19634 empowered the state government to acquire landowner’s land and subsequently the owner in question, Kesavananda filed a suit in the apex court under Article 325 of the constitution. • The suit was for the enforcement of rights like (Article 14)6 right to equality, right to freedom of religion (Article 25)7 and manage religious affairs (Article 26)8 and right to acquire property which is no longer a fundamental right. • The issues that came before the court were the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th amendments and the extent to which the parliament could amend the constitution.

2 INDIA CONST. art.13

3 Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461

4 Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, No 1, Acts of Kerala State Legislature,1964

5 INDIA CONST. art. 32

6 INDIA CONST. art. 14

7 INDIA CONST. art. 25

8 INDIA CONST. art. 26

Any amendment made under Article 368 9was excluded to be subjected to article 13 according to the 24th amendment, the parliament was not legally obliged to compensate the landlords or land owners whose property had been acquired by the government according to the 25th amendment and matters concerning Kerala Land Reforms Act,196310 were kept out of the purview of judiciary according to the 29th amendment. • The Supreme Court ruled that 24th amendment was constitutional and held that parliament had the power to amend constitution including the fundamental rights without altering the basic structure. This is known as Doctrine of Implied Limitation.

ROLE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN KESAVANANDA BHARTI CASE11 § This is an instance where judiciary stepped in to monitor the power of the law-making organ ensuring that it did not exercise arbitrary powers thereby upholding the principle of constitutionalism and establishing the supremacy of the sacrosanct document constitution. Constitutionalism is the backbone of democracy and judiciary played an instrumental role in strengthening democracy as it prevented a law which narrowed the scope of its powers from taking effect by striking it down. § This also encouraged rule of law as under Article 14 reaffirming that everyone is subject to same law. § The 13 judge bench in the ratio 7:6 by held the 29th amendment unconstitutional, implying that the matters concerning land were also under the purview of judiciary.

§ Also, judiciary exercised its power to review the law as it did not conform to the provisions of constitution (Article 13). The extent of parliament’s powers to amend the constitution was now confined. The Doctrine of Basic Structure was a testimony to the fact that there was separation of functions between the legislature and the judiciary. The parliament’s powers to amend the constitution were separate from judiciary’s powers to amend it. The judiciary’s take

9 INDIA CONST. art. 368

10 Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, No 1, Acts of Kerala State Legislature,1964

11 Upasana Sarkar, Kesavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala

Case Analysis,(Mar 19, 2025) https://blog. ipleaders. in/the-kesavananda-bharati-case-and-sustainable-constitutionalism/ on this was historic and by declaring the 29th amendment as invalid, it checked and monitored the parliament’s actions. The balance of powers was maintained as it was not that parliament could not amend the constitution at all. As stated above, only the basic structure of the constitution had to remain intact. Prior to this the story was different and there were multiple times when the parliament’s power to amend the constitution was in question. In 1951, several land reform laws came into effect. These land reform laws were unfavorable to the landowners as some part of their land could be acquired by the state from then on.

This was in conformity with Article 39(b)12 and (c)13 of the directive principles of the state policy which provided for equal distribution of resources particularly production among all citizens and to prevent concentration of wealth. The landowners moved the courts but the parliament by placing these laws in the 9th schedule, prevented judiciary from dealing with such matters. The landowners challenged the 9th schedule again contending that it contravened Article 13(2)14 of the constitution and that an amendment to the constitution has the position of a law. In Sankari Prasad Vs Union of India15 and Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan16 the Supreme court declined both the arguments and ruled in favor of the parliament stating that it had the power to amend the constitution including fundamental rights.

This position was however, reversed in Golaknath Vs State of Punjab17 and the Supreme Court opined that fundamental rights could not be amended. These were evident instances where the judiciary balanced and checked the powers of the legislature. This separation of powers is not absolute and subject to checks among each other in order to maintain balance and also encourage constitutionalism. The doctrine of checks and balances and separation of powers go hand in hand. Theory of separation of powers signifies that one branch should not interfere with the functioning of the other and such functions should not coincide. Checks and balances is seen in judiciary exercising judicial review, legislature supervising the bureaucracy or the executive and executive appointing the judges.

In the context of this case the judiciary stepped in to check the powers of the legislature by defining its power to amend the constitution and declaring the 29th amendment constitutionally invalid.

12 INDIA CONST. art.39. (b)

13 Ibid (c)

14 INDIA CONST. art. 13, cl. 2.

15 Sankari Prasad Vs Union of India, AIR 1951 SUPREME COURT 458

16 Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 845

17 Golaknath Vs State of Punjab, 1967 AIR 1643

Taking this decision into account one could seemingly conclude that it influenced separation of functions and not powers between the judiciary and the legislature. JUDICIAL OVERREACH Judicial overreach is exceeding of powers or going beyond the subject matter jurisdiction by the judiciary in the performance of functions that are in the domain of other branches of the government. This defeats the purpose of separation of powers and checks and balances due to such overstep thereby weakening democracy as the principle of every branch not being unreasonably powerful is hampered. This may or may not protect the rights of citizens but is definitely an attempt to assert its superiority. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM Judicial activism is when judiciary acts in order to protect the rights of the citizens.

It gives way to balance of powers and encourages the principle of constitutionalism because it is associated with judicial review through which it also keeps a check on the powers of the legislature and the executive actions by determining the constitutional validity of the same. This was a case of Judicial activism as the judiciary used its powers and acted as a custodian of rights of the citizens. The decision by the judges to lay down a doctrine of basic structure to guide the parliament about its powers to amend was to clearly provide for what the parliament could amend and stating the law to be invalid to a part of judicial review because parliament unintentionally intruded with the power of judiciary to deal with a class of cases in the state of Kerala.

CONCLUSION

The intervention of judiciary was essential as without the introduction of the basic structure doctrine the parliament tried to assume unreasonable power to amend the constitution and this decision provided a framework as to where it had to step back. However, if we look at Golaknath Vs State of Punjab18 we will find that parliament could not amend the fundamental rights of the constitution as they were the basis of the constitution. In Kesavananda case the parliament’s actions were questionable as it completely tried to act as an obstacle in the way of

18 Ibid

judiciary’s functioning and duties. This also suggests that judicial activism is necessary to prevent parliament from making unjust laws so that the right to equality of every citizen is safeguarded by the judiciary, maintain supremacy of rule of law and in turn the supremacy of the constitution. This is different from judicial overreach as the judiciary did not overstep its powers and testing the constitutional validity of a law and interpreting the same is well within the powers of the judiciary.