Direction: Read the following passage and answer the questions given below.
Kesavananda Bharati & others Versus State of Kerala is certainly one of the leading cases in the constitutional history of India if not the most important judgement of post-independent India and is popularly known as the Fundamental Rights case. The majority judgement in the case was pronounced by S.M.Sikri C. J., Hegde J, Mukherjea J, Shehlat J, Grover J, Jaganmohan Reddy J, Khanna J, and was dissented by Ray J, Palekar J, Mathew J, Beg J, Dwivedi J and Chandrachud J. It is rightly said that the judgement in the instant case brought an end to the conflict between the executive and the judiciary and proved to be a saviour of the democratic system and set up in the country.
The resultant judgement in the case was a hard-fought legal battle between the two constitutional stalwarts and legal luminaries namely N.A. Palkhivala (who represented Petitioners) and H.M. Seervai (who represented the State of Kerala). The hearing in the case took place for sixty-eight long days and finally, a voluminous 703-page judgement was pronounced on 24th April 1973.
Kesavananda Bharati was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious institution located in Kasaragod district, Kerala. Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned. The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the government could acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt. In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were guaranteed to him under: (a) Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion, (b) Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs, (c) Article 14: Right to equality, (d) Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property, (e) Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property.
The Kerala state government enacted another law, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 even as the petition was under the court’s consideration. The contentions made by the petitioners brought to the fore the validity of various amendments that were brought in by the Parliament to nullify the effects of Golaknath v State of Punjab. The petitioners challenged, in particular, three constitutional amendments – 24th Amendment, 25th Amendment and 29th Amendment and their validity. Petitioners contended that the Parliament can’t amend the Constitution in a manner they want as their power to do this is limited.