Editorial: The case that protected Indian democracy

The chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, who passed away a few days ago, had filed a case in 1970 that challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire the Mutt’s property through the application of the State’s Land Reforms Act, 1963. In his petition, the seer had contended that the move challenged his constitutionally guaranteed rights, including that of the right to practice and propagate religion (Article 25) and to own property (Article 31).

The case proceeded to revolve around one central issue – the extent of power Parliament enjoyed to make changes in the Constitution. Was this power unlimited? If no, under what rules is this power circumscribed? These questions were extremely significant given the prevailing climate. The Supreme Court had ruled in the Golak Nath case that Parliament could amend or curtail any fundamental right in the Constitution. The Court had also made a couple of rulings that irked the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It struck down her move to nationalise 14 private sector banks and reversed her decision to abolish privy purses, a promise made to the erstwhile Maharajahs who joined the Indian Union.

With Indira Gandhi striking back with the introduction of constitutional amendments to nullify these court rulings, the issue of Parliament’s untrammelled power to alter the Constitution assumed a real and threatening dimension. To check what could have ended in the emasculation of democracy, the 13-member Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case arrived at a highly unusual but stunningly effective ‘solution’. It ruled, by the narrowest of majorities, that Parliament had no power to amend the basic features of the Constitution. In not defining what these features were, the Court gave itself the room to restore the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary as well as protect the country from anti-democratic legislation.

There are lessons that the Kesavananda Bharati judgment holds out for us in these difficult and fractious times. It is important to remember that the democratic values that we cherish must be safeguarded at all costs. Also, it is important to ensure that our country has maintained its character only through a mechanism of checks and balances. This is true as much of the other pillars of democracy such as the judiciary and the executive as it is of the political class that governs us. In the mission to protect democracy, we are all watchdogs, training our eyes against the misuse of power, the exceeding of jurisdiction, and the undermining of any of its pillars.