The Kesavananda Bharati case involved several parties, including Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner, and the State of Kerala, which defended the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Additionally, there were several intervenors who supported one or the other side in the case.
Respondent’s arguments: The State of Kerala, which defended the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, argued that the Act was a reasonable restriction on the right to property and that it was aimed at promoting social justice and reducing poverty. The State also argued that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited and that there were no limits to this power.
Intervenors’ arguments: There were several intervenors in the case who supported one or the other side. Some intervenors argued that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was a necessary measure to promote social justice and reduce poverty, while others argued that the Act violated the fundamental right to property. Some intervenors also argued that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the independence of the judiciary, were beyond the scope of amendment.
Source: Supreme Court of India
