Hi There, let's go back into timeline of our independence in 1947. After independence from the Britishers, we didn't have any documentation of our ideas, thoughts, or laws... Like how we had to run our democracy, which had a population of around 30 crore. Every process has its own algorithms: for democracy too, we have our algorithms, called: Constitution, A Holy Sacred Book Of Democracy.

Above We Understood, we need Constitution to run democracy. okay?

Leaving behind the holistic process of drafting the constitution and making it ready in November 1949 to finally adopting it on 26th January 1950, we'll jump on a problem we had around that 1950s time. Through the constitution: Timeline 1950s

1) Book Part III, Articles 12-35: We got Fundamentals Rights.

(Equality, Freedom, Against Exploitation, Religion, Cultural & Education, Constitutional Remedies, Property)

2) Part IV, Article 36-51 Government got: Directive Principles Of State Policy: DPSP

like how government should work & think about democracy and its people.

Before starting the case, let's understand a few articles of our Constitution which will be used later frequently:

Article 368:

It says, Parliament can amend the Constitution based on their current socio-economic and political requirements, amendment can be done by Constituent Laws or General Legislative Law.

Article 13(1):

Laws on Fundamental Rights before Independence will be null and void if they compromise current Fundamental Rights by any means.

Article 13(2):

Government Can't make any "law" on Fundamental Rights.

9th Schedule Of Constitution:

if the government puts any law under this schedule, Judicial review will not be possible, suppose the government made a law that they will take half of our salary and put that law under the 9th Schedule of the Book. We can't go for help to any court in that case.

What is the word "law" of 13(2):

It can be interpreted in two ways, 1st: Legislative law, 2nd: Constituent Law.

So, now I can say, you have heard these terms: Constitution, Fundamental Rights, DPSP, We can modify the constitution through amendments, democracy, article 368, 13-1 & 13-2, right? okay fine.

Among the multiple challenges in 1950, we had a problem of an economic gap between the population,

ooh how ?

As India is an कृषि प्रधान - Agricultural Country and so we had a Zamindari rule, where Zamindars used to have acres of lands and others just used to work on those lands for Zamindars. Example:

suppose In a village of 500 families, there are very few Zamindars which holds all of the agricultural and commercial lands, here we can clearly see the economic gap between it, agreed? yes, okay.

!!!!!!State Governments Passed Zamindari Abolition Act!!!!!!

Government noticed this gap and decided to abolish this Zamindari rule and acquire the land into its hand.. and hand it over to the deprived community. So they passed Zamindari Abolition act in their respective states

!!!!!!Zamindars Not Happy, Started Seeking Help From Court!!!!!!

But Zamindars were not happy with these acts & they filed multiple cases in HC & Supreme Court of India from all over the nation.

Zamindars Argued: Right To Property(Land) is a Fundamental Right Given By Constitution and government can't change it because of article 13-2, you are here till now? okay

!!!!!!Central Government Amended The Constitution Saying Abolition Act Is Valid!!!!!!!

After seeing multiple Zamindari Abolition acts and their cases in Courts, Central Government Amended the Constitution for the first time in 1951 through article 368(it defines how to amend the constitution).

1st Constitutional Amendment 1951:

1) Article 31(a) & (b) was added into the Constitution & through 31(a) 9th Schedule(documentation or rule, you can say, explained above) of Constitution was introduced.

2) Government stated: Zamindari Abolition Act is valid. it should be implemented.

!!!!!!Shankari Prasad Vs Union Of India: 1951, He Opposed Government Decision!!!!!

Shankari Prasad went to Supreme court and gave the argument

1) that Government can't amend the fundamental rights by putting it in 9th schedule and doing whatever it wants without Judicial Review.

2) he also asked if the word: Law in 13-2 means constituent law or general law?

3 whether 1st Amendment is valid or not?

!!!!!Supreme Court Reply To Shankari Prasad Case!!!!!!

Yes, Government can change the Fundamentals Rights by using Article 368

Word "law" doesn't include constituent laws, means by constituent law we can amend fundamental rights.

And 1st Amendment is valid as per article 368

!!!!! 17th Constitution Amendment: Government Added 44 Laws into 9th schedule in 1965 !!!!!

you remember schedule 9th?? yes we can't challenge those laws in court. as government added 9th schedule in 1st amendment, they added 44 more laws into 9th schedule, which was a kind of shock to everyone, we were again moving toward slavery.

!!!!! Now 17th Amendment Challenged Into Court: Sajjan Singh Vs State Of Rajasthan!!!!!!!

He also argued somewhat the same arguments as Shankari Prasad, and again Supreme Court gave the same verdict as the previous one, that Parliament(Government) can change the fundamental rights using article 368.

!!!!!! Golak Nath Vs State Of Punjab : 1967 !!!!

Henry & William Golak Nath had 500 acres of land but Punjab government passed an act: Punjab security and land tenure act, and Punjab Government said I'll take 470 acres of land, and 30 acres of land will be owned by Golak Nath Brothers. As we saw, the right to property is a fundamental right, but still, the government was trying to snatch it from the brothers. So they challenged this decision in court. !!!!! Supreme Court Over Golak Nath Case !!!!

Supreme court reversed its previous decision and said: Government can't change the fundamental rights by using article 368 because this amendment is the same as ordinary "law" and as defined in article 13-2, ordinary laws can't change fundamental rights. a constitutional amendment, also being an ordinary law within the meaning of Article 13

!!!! In Response To Golak Nath Case: Government Did Multiple Amendments in Constitution !!!!!

24th Amendment 1971

Government again said the law which we have proposed for fundamental rights is not an ordinary law.. its a constituent law and so we can amend the fundamental rights.

25th Amendment 1971

=>Government was powered to acquire land of Zamindars.

=>Government can only decide compensation and not the Court.

=>Any Law which is meant for DPSP can't be challenged in court .

!!!!! Now Let's Move To The Last Case, which gave a new life to Democracy!!!!!

Kesavanand Bharti Vs State Of Kerala 1970

Kesavanad was the head of Edneer Mutt In Kerala, which was spread over acres of land

In 1969, the Kerala Government Passed Land Reforms Act abolishing the Zamindari Rule.

Kesavanad was forced to give the mutt's land to the government.

In 1970, Kesavanand Moved to Supreme Court, His demands were as follows:

1) Right To Religion is being breached. (Mutt is a religious place)

2) Right To Property is being breached. (Mutt's Land)

3) To what extent parliament can amend Constitution. ?

4) 24th Amendment Legality challenged. 5) 25th Amendment.

In 1972 By 29th Amendment, the Central Government has put Kerala's Land Act into the 9th Schedule. Did you remember the power of the 9th schedule?

!!!!! Judgement Of The SC: Kesavanand Bharti Case 1973 !!!!

The Supreme Court, in a 7-6 majority decision, held that the Constitution of India has a basic structure that cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment. For the first time, the Supreme Court used the term basic structure of Constitution.

SC said to Parliament: You can change the constitution by the means of using the article, you have unlimited power for that..

But you can't alter the Thought process of Constitution by which it is designed... you can't change the basic structure of it, and anytime SC feels the basic structure of Constitution is being amended by any law or amendment, Supreme court will always intervene in that matter to make sure Constitution has retained its sanctity.

Now, consider this: if the BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION had not been upheld by the Supreme Court, and if a dictatorial government had come into power, they could have altered and taken away all our fundamental rights, potentially plunging us back into the darkness of slavery.

HERE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T DEFINE THE "BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION", THEY SAID TO GOVERNMENT, YOU MAKE LAW USING 368, I'LL EXAMINE IT, IF IT HURTS "BASIC DOCTRINE" LAW WILL BE CONSIDERED NULL & VOID. TIME TO TIME SUPREME COURT HAD ADDED SENTENCES INTO BASIC DOCTRINE BUT ITS STILL NOW COMPLETE, ITS COMPLETELY FUTURISTIC, WHICH GAURANTEE TO SAVE CONSTITUION.

That's why this Case of Kesavanand & Judgement of The Honourable Supreme Court is considered a Landmark judgment which saved the democracy.

!!!!! What were the key features of this judgment !!!! ?

1) Supremacy of Constitution was held, no one can abridge it.

2) Judiciary safeguard was provided to Constitution

3) Separation of power between Judiciary & Government made, No further conflict.

etc

Although Kesavanand lost his land of Mutt, his case gave a new meaning to the Constitution and safeguarded democracy.

After some years of judgment, Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights and put into General Laws. So now we have only 6 fundamental Rights

Equality,

Freedom,

Against Exploitation,

Religion,

Cultural & Education,

Constitutional Remedies.

Okay, thanks for reading. It may seem a little complex, but you can remember the outcome of the Kesavanand Case.