Authored By: CHARUPRIYA
NIMS School Of Law, Jaipur, Rajasthan
CASE TITLE :- Kesavananda Bharati vs State Of Kerala, 1973
CITATION:- AIR 1973 SC 1461
JUDGMENT DATE:- 24 April 1973
COURT AND BENCH
The Supreme Court of India held session with a rare thirteen-judge panel led by Chief JusticeS.M. Sikri – members included Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, then A.N. Raystepped in, followed by P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna joined next, along withK.K. Mathew; after him came S.M. Beg, while S.N. Dwivedi took part too, Y.V. Chandrachudweighed in, D.G. Palekar contributed, alongside M.H. Beg who completed the group.
The bench was constituted primarily to address the scope and limitations of Parliament’s powerto amend the Constitution. The case marked the end of a long period of legal ambiguityregarding constitutional amendments following the conflicting precedents of Shankari Prasadv. Union of India (1951) and I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967).
- PARTIES INVOLVED
Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati – spiritual leader of Edneer Mutt, based in Kasaragod, Kerala.
Respondents:
∙ State of Kerala, represented by its legal advocates, defending the Kerala Land ReformsAct.
∙ Union of India, which intervened to defend the validity of the 24th, 25th, and29thConstitutional Amendments, which were enacted during the pendency of the petitioner’ssuit.
Although the initial dispute related to property rights, the case eventually transformedintoamonumental constitutional challenge concerning the authority and limitations of Parliament’samending power.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The story started with a 1963 Kerala law that limited how much land temples and religiousgroups could own – this included the Edneer Mutt. Kesavananda Bharati took issue withit, saying it broke his basic rights under the Constitution, especially those tied to religion, equality, personal freedom, and property ownership. While his case was still going on, lawmakers passedthree major changes to the Constitution.
∙ “The 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971”1:- Parliament can change any part of theConstitution, even rights seen as fundamental; also, once changed, the President must give approval without delay.
∙ “The 25th Constitutional Amendment, 1971”
2:- The 25th Amendment curtailedthe
right to property and strengthened the State’s power to implement Directive PrinciplesofState Policy. It replaced the word “compensation” with “amount” in Article 31(2), preventing courts from questioning the adequacy of payment when the State acquiredprivate property. It also added Article 31C, which protected laws made to give effect toArticle 39(b) and 39(c) from being challenged for violating Articles 14, 19, or 31. 3 – Added two Kerala land reformstatutes
∙ “29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972”
to the Ninth Schedule, thereby immunizing them from judicial review under Article 31B.
The person who filed the case later questioned whether these changes were allowed under theconstitution, saying they harmed core parts of it along with basic democratic values. That shift turned what began as a fight over land into a major legal battle about howmuch authorityParliament really has to alter the constitution.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 includes the authority to amend, alter, orabrogate Fundamental Rights.
- Whether the power of amendment is unlimited, or whether there exist implied limitationson Parliament’s constituent power.
- Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were constitutionally valid. 4. Whether the term “amendment” under Article 368 permits Parliament to destroyorsupersede the essential features of the Constitution.
- Whether the newly inserted Article 31C, which restricted judicial review, wasconstitutionally valid.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
PETITIONER:-
The petitioner said Parliament can change the Constitution, yet not wipe out its core shape-adjustments, demolition. Fundamental Rights sit at the heart of the system, they stressed; thoserights shouldn’t be weakened or removed. Instead, they proposed the concept – the “BasicStructure Doctrine” – meaning some parts stay protected: things like democracy, court oversight, secular values, divided government roles, legal fairness, shared state power, andjudgeautonomy – all off-limits to lawmakers. So when the 24th and 25th changes boostedparliamentary control while shrinking judicial checks, critics called them invalid fromthe start -with court scrutiny seen as one key pillar.
DEFENDANT:-
The Union of India said Parliament had full power to change the Constitution under Article368-just like the first Constituent Assembly did; changes could mean adding, removing, or swappingparts, even affecting Fundamental Rights. Because land reform and social progress reliedonadjusting those rights, they stressed such updates were needed to meet broader policy goals. Also, they claimed how far that amendment power went was up to lawmakers, not courts, sojudgesshouldn’t step in; every contested update, they insisted, fell within proper constitutional authority.
JUDGMENT
The apex court made a key ruling by 7 to 6, backing the idea that lawmakers can changelawsfreely – yet still can’t wreck the core framework of the Constitution.
∙ The 24th Amendment got confirmed, showing Parliament can tweak Fundamental Rights- yet still bound by the Basic Structure idea.
∙ The 25th Amendment got a mixed result – one piece passed, updating Article 31, whilethe other, blocking court oversight, didn’t survive.
∙ The 29th Amendment stood its ground, yet the Court made clear that laws tuckedintotheNinth Schedule could still face review if they clashed with the core principles of theConstitution.
This judgment established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” with Justice H.R. Khanna’s decisiveopinion articulating that “the power to amend does not include the power to destroy.”
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court’s thinking focused on reading Article 368 of Indian Constitution while keepingtheConstitution’s core values intact. Most judges said “amendment” means change – but not total removal – so altering key parts would break constitutional limits. They found the founderswanted some ideas protected, like legal equality, elected leadership, no state religion, dividedauthority, fair laws, shared central-state power, personal worth, free speech, and judicial review. Together, these shape what’s known as the foundational framework. Justice Khanna stressedParliament can revise rules but doesn’t hold the same sweeping power as the original makers-and shouldn’t weaken democracy’s heart. Judicial review was seen as a key piece of howtheConstitution works – without it, any change blocking court oversight would wreck its foundation. While weighing Directive Principles against Fundamental Rights, the Court made clear oneshouldn’t crush the essence of the other just to push policies forward.
CONCLUSION
Ruling shook things up – big time – not just in India, but aroundthe The “Kesavananda Bharati” world. The Basic Structure idea, which blocks strong-handed changes that couldwreckdemocracy’s core setup. Instead of letting lawmakers run wild, it drew clear lines: theycantweak the Constitution, yet never mess with its soul. Over time, courts kept backing this stance, especially in major rulings like “Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)” 5, then “MinervaMillsv.
Union of India (1980)”
6, alongside “I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)”
- 7. In theend,
Kesavananda Bharati shows how solid India’s democracy really is – blocking rule bymeremajority while shielding basic rights and liberties for people.
Reference(S):
1 The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, No. 24, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India const).
2 The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India const).
3 The Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, No. 36, Acts Of Parliament, 1972 (India const).
4 ruling shook things up – big time – not just in India, but aroundthe
4 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1, 1973 INSC 91, (1973) 4 SCC 225, AIR1973SC1461
5 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 159.
6 Minerva Mills, Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 S.C.C. 625.
7 I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs. v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1.
