Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1973) 4 SCC 225, AIR 1973 SC 1461, is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge Constitutional Bench, one of the largest ever. This case is pivotal in Indian constitutional history as it established the doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Case Name and Citation

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970, Supreme Court of India, 1973 AIR 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225.[1][2][3]

Court and Bench

The case was heard by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, including Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, H.R. Khanna, and others. The size reflected the importance and complexity of constitutional issues involved.[2][3][1]

Date of Judgment

The judgment was announced on 24 April 1973 after over six months of hearings spanning 68 days, concluding on 23 March 1973 but with the formal judgment pronounced later.[3][1][2]

Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala, along with others who held interests in property.
• Respondents: State of Kerala and the Union of India.[4][1]

Facts of the Case

The State of Kerala enacted land reform legislations in the 1950s and 1960s aimed at redistributing land from large landowners to the landless poor. The Kerala Land Reforms Act placed limits on individual landholdings and introduced acquisition provisions. The Edneer Mutt, headed by Kesavananda Bharati, owned significant land that was targeted by these reforms.

In 1969 and 1971, amendments were made to the Kerala land reform laws to facilitate further acquisition and redistribution of land holdings, including those owned by religious institutions. Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition challenging these laws and later the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to the Indian Constitution. These amendments sought to curtail fundamental rights and expand Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including limiting judicial review of such amendments.

Kesavananda Bharati argued that these amendments violated his right to property, religious freedoms, and equality under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, and 26, and that Parliament could not destroy the Constitution’s core identity or basic structure. The case transformed into a constitutional challenge on whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.[1][2][4][3]

Issues Raised

• Did Parliament have unlimited authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
• Could Parliament amend or destroy the “basic structure” or fundamental framework of the Constitution?
• Were the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments valid when they curtailed fundamental rights and judicial review?
• To what extent could land reform laws override property rights and religious protections?
• What are the limits of judicial review over constitutional amendments?[2][3][1]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner

• The amendments violated fundamental rights including property and religious freedoms.
• Parliament’s power under Article 368 was not unlimited and could not alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Judicial review was a core constitutional safeguard and could not be taken away.
• Property rights were fundamental and could not be arbitrarily abrogated.
• The amendments undermined democratic principles including the rule of law and separation of powers.[4][1][2]

Respondent

• Parliamentary amending power was plenary to enable socio-economic reforms addressing inequality.
• The amendments were necessary for effective land reforms and redistribution.
• Property rights were subject to reasonable restrictions for public welfare.
• Judicial review should not obstruct Parliament’s legislative mandate for social justice.
• The amendments were Legislative competence aimed at promoting social equity and poverty reduction.[2][4]

Judgment (Outcome)

By a narrow majority of 7 to 6, the Court ruled that:

• Parliament has wide powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution but cannot alter or destroy its basic structure or essential features.
• The ruling formally established the Basic Structure Doctrine, whereby fundamental features like supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights form the core and cannot be abrogated.
• The 24th Amendment, limiting judicial review concerning amendments, was partially upheld, but key parts of the 25th Amendment were struck down for violating judicial powers.
• Land reform laws were upheld as constitutional insofar as they pursued social justice without destroying constitutional essentials.
• The judiciary retained the authority to review constitutional amendments and strike down those damaging the Constitution’s core framework.

This ruling effectively preserved the Constitution’s enduring values while allowing room for socio-economic change by balancing Parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.[5][3][1][2]

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The Constitution is a living document with an unalterable core—the basic structure—that safeguards democratic governance, judicial independence, rule of law, and fundamental rights.
• Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend but not to destroy or emasculate the Constitution.
• Judicial review is essential to ensure checks and balances on parliamentary power and protect individual rights.
• Property rights, while fundamental, can be regulated for achieving equitable social objectives under the Directive Principles.
• The Court’s reasoning balanced constitutional rigidity with flexibility, preserving the democratic balance between the legislature and judiciary.
• The doctrine of basic structure upholds constitutional continuity against transient political changes or majorities that may seek to erode fundamental principles.[3][1][2]

Obiter Dicta

• Several judges opined on the importance of democracy, rule of law, and safeguarding freedoms while acknowledging the need for social reforms.
• Dissenting opinions reflected in-depth debate about the limits of Parliament’s power versus constitutional protection.
• The observations have influenced constitutional jurisprudence, emphasizing protections beyond mere procedural legality.[1][2]

Conclusion/Observations

The Kesavananda Bharati case is hailed as a milestone in Indian constitutional law, reinforcing judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation and protecting the Constitution’s core features against possible destruction through legislative abuse. It remains a fundamental precedent shaping the balance between Parliament’s law-making functions and the safeguarding of democracy and fundamental rights.

By anchoring the constitution in inviolable principles, the judgment ensured that the aspirations enshrined in the Constitution endure over time, enabling social justice while upholding constitutional governance. This decision laid the foundation for modern Indian constitutionalism and is referenced extensively to guard against constitutional amendments detrimental to democratic and rule of law principles.[6][7][8][1][2]

Reference(s):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala           
2. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/kesavananda-bharati-case/           
3. https://www.alec.co.in/judgement-page/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala       
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/    
5. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements/ 
6. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/kesavananda-bharati-case-1973-sc-judgements 
7. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/50-years-of-kesavananda-bharati-judgment 
8. https://www.myadvo.in/blog/keshvananda-bharti-case-analysis/ 
9. https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/KBJ/?p=home%2Fintro 
10. https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-was-kesavananda-bharati-case-all-you-need-to-know-1682351374-1