Kesavananda Bharati and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (1973)

1. Case Title & Citation  

Kesavananda Bharati and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (1973)  AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225 

2. Court Name & Bench  

Supreme Court of India  

Judges:  

This was heard by a huge group of 13 judges, the biggest bench ever in India’s Supreme  Court at that time. The chief judge was Sarv Mittra Sikri, and the others were Justices  Jamwantlal Manilal Shelat, Kewal Singh Hegde, Amar Nath Grover, Ajit Nath Ray, Pingle  Jaganmohan Reddy, Dattatraya Ganesh Palekar, Hans Raj Khanna, Kuttyil Kurien Mathew,  Mohammad Hidayatullah Beg, Shiam Nath Dwivedi, Ashok Kumar Mukherjee, and  Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud  

Bench type:  

 Full Constitutional Bench (13 judges), set up because the case involved big questions about  changing the Constitution, and it needed to rethink earlier decisions like the Golaknath case.  

3. Date of Judgment  

April 24, 1973. The hearings went on for a long time, starting in October 1972 and lasting  about five months with arguments from top lawyers on both sides.  

4. Parties Involved  

Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s):  

 The main petitioner was Kesavananda Bharati, who was the head (or pontiff) of a religious  math (like a monastery) called Edneer Mutt in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He was  joined by others like some landowners and sugar mill owners who were also affected by land  laws. They were worried about losing their land and rights because of new state rules.  

Respondent(s)/Defendant(s):  

 The State of Kerala was the main one, as they made the land reform laws. The Union of  India (central government) also joined in because the case questioned big changes to the  Constitution made by Parliament. They defended the laws as needed for fair sharing of land  and helping poor people.  

5. Facts of the Case  

Let’s break this down step by step, like telling a story in order. Back in the 1960s, the  government in Kerala wanted to fix problems where a few rich people owned too much land, while many poor farmers had none. So, they passed the Kerala Land Reforms Act in 1963,  which said extra land from big owners, including religious places like mutts, would be taken  and given to landless workers. This act was changed in 1969 to make it stricter.  

Kesavananda Bharati, who ran the Edneer Mutt, owned some land that supported the mutt’s  work, like helping with education and religion. In 1970, he saw that these new rules would  take away his land without fair pay, and it might hurt his right to practice religion freely  because the mutt needed that land. On March 21, 1970, he went straight to the Supreme Court  with a writ petition (a special request) under Article 32 of the Constitution, saying the laws  broke his basic rights like equality (Article 14), freedom to own property (Article 19(1)(f)),  religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26), and right to fair compensation for taken property  (Article 31).  

Around the same time, India’s Parliament (the law-making body) was unhappy with earlier  court decisions that stopped them from changing the Constitution easily. For example, in  1967, the Golaknath case said Parliament couldn’t touch basic rights. To fight back,  Parliament made three big changes: the 24th Amendment in 1971 (to say amendments aren’t  “laws” that can be challenged under Article 13), the 25th Amendment in 1971 (to limit  property rights and protect laws helping the poor), and the 29th Amendment in 1972 (which  put the Kerala land laws in a special list called the Ninth Schedule, so courts couldn’t easily  question them).  

Kesavananda’s case grew bigger and included challenges to these three amendments too.  Other similar cases were added to it. The whole thing was about balancing government power  to change laws for social good against protecting people’s basic rights. The hearings were  intense, with famous lawyers like Nani Palkhivala arguing for the petitioners.  

6. Issues Raised  

The court had to answer some key questions about power and rights. Here they are clearly:  

– Can Parliament change any part of the Constitution under Article 368, or are there limits,  especially on basic rights in Part III?  

– Is the 24th Amendment okay? It changed Articles 13 and 368 to say Parliament can amend  anything, even basic rights, and amendments aren’t “laws” that courts can strike down easily.  

– Is the 25th Amendment valid? It added Article 31C, which said laws following certain  guiding principles (like sharing wealth fairly) can’t be challenged if they hurt rights like  equality or freedom.  

– Is the 29th Amendment fine? It added the Kerala land laws to the Ninth Schedule to protect  them from court checks, but does this go too far?  

– Overall, what does “amend” really mean? Can it mean destroying the main ideas of the  Constitution?  

7. Arguments of the Parties 

Key contentions by the Petitioner/Appellant:  

The petitioners said Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 isn’t endless. “Amend”  means small fixes, not big changes that wreck the Constitution’s core. They worried unlimited  power could let a bad government turn India into a dictatorship. They pointed to earlier cases  like Sajjan Singh (1965), where one judge hinted at “basic features” that can’t be touched. The  Golaknath case (1967) was their big support, saying basic rights are untouchable. For the  amendments: The 24th lets Parliament act like a king over rights; the 25th’s Article 31C kills  court checks on unfair laws; the 29th hides bad laws in the Ninth Schedule. The Kerala laws  discriminate against religious groups and don’t pay fairly, breaking Articles 14, 19, 25, 26,  and 31. They used ideas from other countries’ constitutions and natural rights to argue for  limits.  

Key contentions by the Respondent/Defendant:  

The government side said Article 368 gives Parliament full power as the people’s voice to  amend, add, or remove anything, including rights, because elected leaders know what’s best  for society. They leaned on old cases like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh, which  said amendments are special and not “laws” under Article 13. No hidden limits exist; the  Constitution is flexible for progress, like land reforms to help the poor under Articles 39(b)  and (c) of guiding principles. Golaknath was wrong and should be overturned. The  amendments just fix court blocks and ensure social justice. Without them, rich people would  block changes needed for equality.  

8. Judgment / Final Decision  

The court decided 7 to 6 in favor of some limits. They said yes, Parliament can amend basic  rights (overturning Golaknath), but no, they can’t change the “basic structure” of the  Constitution – that’s like the heart and soul that keeps it alive as a democracy. The 24th  Amendment was fully okay. The 25th was mostly fine, but the part of Article 31C that  stopped courts from checking laws under all rights was cut back; courts can still check for  equality and freedom. The 29th was upheld, but those protected laws can still be tested if they  hurt the basic structure. The Kerala land laws weren’t struck down, so no direct win for  Kesavananda on his land, but the big idea of limits was set. The court didn’t give money or  stop the laws but laid down rules for future changes.  

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi  

The court’s main thinking was to find a middle path. They said the Constitution isn’t rigid like  a rock or floppy like rubber; it needs balance. Overturning Golaknath, they agreed Parliament  has real power to amend under Article 368, not just procedures. But “amend” can’t mean  “destroy” – imagine if Parliament changed it to end democracy or make one person king; that  would kill the Constitution’s spirit.  

So, they created the “basic structure doctrine.” It’s like the foundation of a house: you can  repaint or add rooms, but not knock down the base. Chief Justice Sikri listed basics like:  Constitution is supreme (not Parliament), it’s a republic with democracy, secular (no favoring one religion), separation of powers (judges, lawmakers, executives check each other), and  federalism (power shared between center and states). Other judges added more: judicial  review (courts can check laws), rule of law (everyone follows rules), unity of India, dignity  and freedom for people, and even welfare goals like helping the poor.  

They used ideas from earlier cases: Revived Shankari Prasad but added limits from  Golaknath hints. They looked at how other countries protect constitutions. This doctrine  means courts can strike amendments that harm these basics, protecting against power grabs  while allowing good changes. It was a close vote, with detailed opinions from each judge,  showing how deep the debate was.  

10. Conclusion  

This case is like a shield for India’s Constitution. It stopped Parliament from going too far,  ensuring democracy stays strong. created the basic structure doctrine, limiting parliament’s  power to amend the constitution. It protects democracy, rights, and federalism while allowing  social reforms. Later cases, like Minerva Mills in 1980, used this to fix bad amendments  during emergencies. It shows courts as guardians of rights, balancing change with stability.  Overall, it’s a win for fair governance, teaching that power has limits for everyone’s good.