Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Authored By: Drushti Bhalerao

ILS Law College

Introduction

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is one of the most defining moments in Indian constitutional history. It was decided by a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest in Indian history. This case shaped the way we interpret the powers of Parliament and the limits placed on those powers by the Constitution.

The main idea that emerged from this case is the Basic Structure Doctrine, which means that although Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its essential framework or guiding principles.

Thesis:

Through this decision, the Supreme Court protected the true spirit of the Constitution. It made sure that no government or parliamentary majority can destroy the core values that make India a democratic and constitutional nation.

Background of the Case

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader from Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, because it restricted the property his religious institution could hold. He believed that the law violated his Fundamental Rights, especially those under Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.

Around the same time, the government had passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which expanded Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution.

This led to a serious constitutional question:

Can Parliament change any part of the Constitution, or are there certain features that must remain untouched?

The Supreme Court took up this issue in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Main Legal Questions

Does Article 368 give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution?
Are there basic features that cannot be amended under any circumstances?
What are the essential elements that make up the identity of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment of the Court

The judgment, delivered on 24 April 1973, was extremely close, with a 7 to 6 majority.

The majority held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is broad but not absolute. Parliament can make changes, but it cannot destroy the basic structure or essential character of the Constitution.

Justice H. R. Khanna’s opinion became the most crucial. He stated that Parliament could amend any provision but must not damage the overall framework that gives the Constitution its identity.

This view gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, a principle that still defines the limits of constitutional amendment today.

Key Arguments and Analysis

The Constitution Has a Core That Cannot Be Changed Chief Justice S. M. Sikri and several other judges emphasized that the Constitution has certain permanent principles. These include democracy, secularism, separation of powers, rule of law, and the supremacy of the Constitution.

They believed that these core values form the foundation of India’s political system. Allowing Parliament to change them would risk turning the country away from its democratic roots.

“Amend” Does Not Mean “Destroy”

The Court explained that the term “amend” in Article 368 means making improvements or changes, not rewriting the Constitution completely.

Justice Khanna observed that:

The word “amendment” implies that the original Constitution continues to exist without losing its basic identity.In simple words, Parliament has the power to modify the Constitution, but it cannot create a new one in its place.

Learning from Other Nations

The judges referred to other countries for comparison.

In Germany, Article 79(3) of the Basic Law prevents any change that affects the fundamental structure of the Constitution.

In the United States, the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, which allows courts to check unconstitutional acts by the legislature.

These examples helped the Indian judges support the idea that every Constitution needs limits on legislative power.

Judicial Review as a Basic Feature

The Court declared that judicial review is itself a part of the basic structure. It ensures that the courts can examine government actions and strike down those that violate the Constitution.

Later, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position by invalidating parts of the 42nd Amendment, which had attempted to restrict the Court’s powers.

Important Constitutional Provisions

Article or Amendment Purpose

Article 13(2) Prohibits the State from making laws that violate Fundamental Rights.

Articles 32 and 226 Provide the right to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for the protection of rights.

Article 368 Lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution. 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments expanded Parliament’s amendment powers and protected certain laws from judicial review.

42nd Amendment (1976) Tried to override this judgment but was later struck down in Minerva Mills.

Impact and Legacy

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment became the foundation of Indian constitutional law.

It influenced later decisions such as:

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

Each of these cases reaffirmed that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be changed.

Because of this judgment, the Constitution remains both flexible and stable. It can adapt to new circumstances but cannot lose its essential identity or democratic spirit.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati case is much more than a legal ruling. It stands as a powerful reminder that the Constitution is the highest authority in India. It protects citizens from the misuse of power and ensures that democracy and justice always prevail.

By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that no government could ever undermine the principles on which India was built. This judgment continues to safeguard the nation’s constitutional and democratic values.

Reference(S):