Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala

Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala

Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461¹

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 24 April 1973

Bench Composition: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, and Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.K. Mukherjea, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud

Introduction

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is considered one of the most important judgments in Indian constitutional history.² It answered one of the most consequential questions in Indian constitutional law: can Parliament change any part of the Constitution, or are there certain features that cannot be changed at all?

Before the case, there was a long-standing conflict between Parliament and the judiciary concerning the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Parliament believed it had complete authority to amend any provision, including the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, however, was concerned that unlimited amending power could destroy the core values of the Constitution.³

The Supreme Court ultimately resolved this conflict through the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, but that it cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or essential features.

This judgment changed Indian constitutional law forever. It preserved democracy while restricting the powers of Parliament and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme. Even today, the Basic Structure Doctrine continues to play a central role in protecting the Constitution from amendments that would undermine it.

Facts of the Case

Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. The Mutt held a large area of land used to maintain the institution and carry out its religious activities.

During the 1950s and 1960s, several state governments introduced land reform laws aimed at reducing economic inequality and distributing land more equitably. Pursuant to this policy, the Kerala government enacted the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Act imposed limits on the amount of land a person or institution could hold and provided for the redistribution of excess land to landless people. These reforms affected the property held by Edneer Mutt.

Swami Kesavananda Bharati believed the law violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution. He claimed it interfered with his right to property and his right to manage the affairs of a religious institution. He therefore filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking protection of his fundamental rights.⁴

While the case remained unresolved before the Court, Parliament passed three constitutional amendments that transformed the nature of the dispute.

First, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, which declared that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.⁵

Second, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, which reduced the protection afforded to the right to property and inserted Article 31C, giving certain Directive Principles of State Policy priority over fundamental rights.⁶

Third, Parliament passed the Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972, which placed certain Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution so that they could not easily be challenged in court.⁷

As a result, the case grew into a far larger constitutional dispute. It was no longer only about land reform in Kerala — it was about the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution itself.

Because earlier Supreme Court decisions had given conflicting answers to this question, a thirteen-judge bench — the largest in the history of the Supreme Court of India — was constituted to decide the matter once and for all.

The case raised fundamental questions about constitutional supremacy, parliamentary power, judicial review, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Legal Issues

• Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
• Can Parliament amend or omit a fundamental right?
• Are there any limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?
• Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments valid?
• Can Parliament alter the Constitution’s basic identity and essential features through its amending power?

Arguments Presented

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that Parliament does not possess unlimited power to amend the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the Constitution is the supreme law of the country, and Parliament’s power derives from the Constitution itself — Parliament therefore cannot destroy the very document that gives it authority.

The petitioner argued that the word “amendment” means mending the document while preserving its original essence, not destroying or replacing the Constitution altogether.

The petitioner relied heavily on the earlier decision in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights. According to the petitioner, fundamental rights are essential to democracy and individual liberty and, for that reason, cannot be taken away by constitutional amendment.

The petitioner further argued that certain features of the Constitution — democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and the rule of law — are so fundamental that they cannot be changed or abolished.

Finally, the petitioner submitted that the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments gave Parliament excessive power and severely weakened the constitutional limitations on government authority.

Arguments of the Respondent

The Union of India and the State of Kerala argued that Parliament has complete constituent power under Article 368 and can amend every provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.

The respondents relied heavily on Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, in which the Supreme Court recognized that Parliament possesses wide power to amend the Constitution.

The government argued that social and economic conditions change over time, and that Parliament must have sufficient power to amend the Constitution as necessary to meet society’s needs and implement the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The respondents further argued that the Constitution contains no express restriction on Parliament’s amending power, and that the judiciary should not create restrictions not found in the text of the Constitution itself. Doing so, the government contended, would obstruct Parliament’s power and weaken democracy.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

This was one of the longest judgments in Indian legal history, running to over 700 printed pages and comprising eleven separate opinions delivered by thirteen judges.⁸

By a majority of seven to six, the Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is very wide, but not unlimited.

The Court first distinguished between amending the Constitution and destroying it. The judges held that an amendment involves making changes while preserving the essence and identity of the Constitution. If Parliament were permitted to destroy the Constitution’s basic features, it could fundamentally change the nature of the Indian state and even abolish democracy itself.⁹

The Court further held that Parliament is not superior to the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution created Parliament, and Parliament therefore cannot exercise powers that would destroy the very source of its own authority.

The central question before the Court was whether the fundamental rights could be amended at all. The majority held that Parliament could amend fundamental rights, but that such amendments could not damage the essential features of the Constitution.

The Court thereby introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, the central principle established by this case. Under the doctrine, certain features of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be destroyed by a constitutional amendment.

The Court emphasized the importance of judicial review. Democracy and free elections were held to be basic features because they ensure that the government remains accountable to the people. Federalism was also treated as fundamental, since the Constitution distributes power between the states and the Union.

The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, holding that Parliament does possess the power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.

The 25th Amendment was upheld only in part; the provision that sought to exclude judicial review was struck down.

The 29th Amendment was also upheld, though the Court made clear that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after this judgment could still be challenged if they damaged the basic structure.

Majority and Dissenting Opinions

The majority — Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and Justices Shelat, Hegde, Grover, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna — held that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine.¹⁰

Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion proved decisive. He agreed that Parliament could amend fundamental rights but firmly rejected the argument that Parliament had unlimited authority to destroy the Constitution’s essential features.

The dissenting judges — Justices Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, and Chandrachud — took a different view. They held that Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 was unlimited, and that the Court should not impose restrictions not expressly stated in the Constitution.¹¹

They argued that the Constitution itself gave Parliament the authority to amend any provision, and that imposing judicial limitations would amount to rewriting the Constitution.

Despite these differences, the majority view prevailed, and the basic structure doctrine became a foundational principle of Indian constitutional law.

Judgment and Relief Granted

On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment by a majority of seven to six. The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, but cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Court accordingly overruled I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab to the extent it held that fundamental rights could not be amended at all. At the same time, the Court rejected the government’s argument that Parliament possesses unlimited power to amend the Constitution.

The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, since it merely clarified Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The 25th Amendment was upheld in part, but the provision excluding judicial review was struck down. The 29th Amendment was also upheld, though the Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could still be challenged if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

The petition was thus partly allowed, and the Court placed an important limitation on Parliament’s amending power through the basic structure doctrine.

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or essential features.¹²

Critical Analysis

This judgment is a landmark because it protects constitutional democracy and prevents Parliament from becoming too powerful. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court ensured that the Constitution’s essential values cannot be destroyed by a temporary political majority.

The doctrine shields core principles such as democracy, judicial review, federalism, and the rule of law. It also protects the fundamental rights and preserves the supremacy of the Constitution.

The judgment has, however, drawn criticism. The most significant criticism is that the Constitution does not expressly mention a “basic structure” — critics argue that the Court created a new principle not found in the constitutional text.¹³

Another criticism is that the Court never clearly defined the “basic structure.” Because the judgment did not provide a fixed list of protected features, judges retain considerable discretion in deciding whether a given amendment violates the doctrine.

Despite these criticisms, the doctrine has protected the framework of the Constitution for more than fifty years and remains one of the strongest safeguards against arbitrary constitutional amendment.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala is one of the most significant judgments in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure.

The decision gave rise to the Basic Structure Doctrine, which continues to shield democracy, judicial review, federalism, and other essential features of Indian constitutional law, and remains a cornerstone of the Constitution of India.

Note(S):

1. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1750 (8th ed. 2018).
3. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience 258–60 (1999).
4. India Const. arts. 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26 & 31.
5. Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971.
6. Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.
7. Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972.
8. Kesavananda Bharati, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
9. Id.
10. Kesavananda Bharati, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
11. Id.
12. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).
13. Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics 112–13 (1980).

Bibliography

I. Primary Sources

Cases

1. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India); AIR 1973 SC 1461.
2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 (India).
3. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (India).
4. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 (India).
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1 (India).
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 (India).
7. Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 (India).
8. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1 (India).

Constitutional Materials and Statutes

1. India Const.
2. Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971.
3. Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.
4. Constitution (Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Act, 1972.
5. Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

II. Secondary Sources

Books

1. Austin, Granville, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience (Oxford University Press 1999).
2. Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India (22d ed. LexisNexis 2015).
3. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. LexisNexis 2018).
4. Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India (4th ed. Universal Law Publishing 2013).
5. Shiva Rao, B., The Framing of India’s Constitution: Select Documents (Indian Institute of Public Administration 1968).
6. Baxi, Upendra, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics (Eastern Book Company 1980).

Journal Articles and Online Sources

1. Indian Kanoon
2. Supreme Court of India
3. SCC Online Blog
4. PRS Legislative Research
5. Law Commission of India Reports
6. HeinOnline Database.
7. JSTOR Database.
8. Google Scholar
9. SSRN (Social Science Research Network)