His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. V.State of Kerala & Anr.

Name of the Case: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

COURT NAME & BENCH

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.M. Sikri, C.J., J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna, A.K. Mukherjea, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Bench Strength: 13 Judges

Date of Judgment: April 24, 1973

PARTIES INVOLVED

Petitioner: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru was the head of the Sri Edneer Mutt, located in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He challenged the Kerala Government’s Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, which sought to restrict the management of property belonging to his institution.

Respondent: The State of Kerala defended the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, and its subsequent amendments.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala¹ is one of the most consequential judgments in Indian constitutional history. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which fundamentally limits the amending power of the Indian Parliament. The case was heard by the largest bench ever constituted in India — thirteen judges of the Supreme Court.

The proceedings spanned 68 days, during which over 100 cases were deferred. To interpret the relevant constitutional provisions, the courts examined the constitutions of more than 70 countries. The resulting judgment runs to 703 pages, cementing its place as one of the most significant in Indian legal jurisprudence.

The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, was the chief priest of the Sri Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala. The State Government of Kerala had introduced the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969,² under which it sought to acquire approximately 300 acres of land belonging to the Mutt. In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati approached the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition, challenging the Act on the ground that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India,³ which guarantee the freedom to manage religious affairs and the right to own property. He argued that owning and managing land is a fundamental right of a citizen under Article 26 of the Constitution, and that such rights must be protected.

The case also followed in the wake of earlier constitutional amendments — including the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 — which sought to clarify the scope of Parliament’s amending power. The petitioner contended that certain amendments and legislative actions had infringed upon fundamental rights and exceeded Parliament’s constitutional authority.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, and the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972, were constitutionally valid.
• What is the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
• Does Parliament possess unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in any manner it chooses, and that conferring unlimited amending power risks serious misuse. They contended that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is inherently limited. In their submission, the Constitution was drafted to protect the nation from any future tyranny — even tyranny exercised by elected representatives.

It was further contended that Article 368 does not grant Parliament the authority to alter, abrogate, or destroy the basic framework of the Constitution or the fundamental rights of citizens. Since the amending power is itself derived from the Constitution, it is necessarily subject to the Constitution’s inherent limitations.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that Parliament possesses the power to abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations, and freedom of religion. They went so far as to contend that Parliament could, under Article 368, replace democracy with one-party rule, curtail or repeal the Constitution, and establish any form of government — even one that grants no freedoms to citizens.

The State’s primary contention was that Parliament is vested with plenary amending power over every part of the Constitution, without exception, by virtue of Article 368.

JUDGMENT

The landmark judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973, by a majority of 7:6. The majority held that Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution in furtherance of its socio-economic obligations, provided that such an amendment does not damage or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

The minority, in their dissenting opinion, did not favour granting Parliament such wide amending power. The Court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act in its entirety. However, with respect to the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, that portion of the amendment which curtailed the power of judicial review was held to be ultra vires the Constitution. The Court held that while Parliament has broad power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, that power is not unlimited. Crucially, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in such a way as to destroy or abrogate its “Basic Structure.” Any amendment that seeks to alter the basic structure is void.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India gave expression to the “Basic Structure Doctrine.” According to this doctrine, Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but it may not alter, damage, or destroy the essential features or basic structure of the Constitution. Notably, the Court did not exhaustively enumerate what elements constitute the “basic structure” — this was deliberately left to the progressive interpretation of the courts. The Court further held that any amendment touching upon a constitutional provision must necessarily withstand the “basic structure” test.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Basic Structure Doctrine: The essential features of the Constitution — its basic structure — lie beyond the amending authority of Parliament. The doctrine is protective in nature: amendments are valid so long as they do not damage or destroy the Constitution’s fundamental framework.

The Court preserved judicial review as an integral component of the constitutional framework and positioned the judiciary as a guardian against amendments that would subvert the Constitution’s core identity. The judgment did not hold that Parliament lacked amending power altogether; rather, it upheld Parliament’s amending power in general while imposing the basic-structure limitation. As a consequence, some constitutional amendments were upheld while it was made clear that amendments violating the basic structure could be invalidated by the judiciary.

CONCLUSION

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala stands as one of the most significant judgments ever delivered by the Supreme Court of India. It entrenched the Basic Structure Doctrine, defined the relationship between the Union and the States, and protected India’s federal structure from parliamentary overreach. Conferring limitless amending power on Parliament would have imperilled not only the basic features of the Constitution but its very essence and spirit.

This landmark ruling has given the Indian Constitution its enduring stability. Although the petitioner did not succeed on all grounds, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case proved to be a safeguard for Indian democracy — preventing the Constitution from being hollowed out by successive amendments and preserving its foundational character for generations to come.

REFERENCE(S):

¹ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

² Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Kerala Act 35 of 1969).

³ The Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 14, 19, 25 and 26.