Authored By: Henna Alwiya Khan
University Of Nottingham
- Case Title & Citation
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
- Court Name & Bench
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 13-judge Constitutional Bench (largest ever in India)
Judges: S.M. Sikri (C.J.), J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud, A.K. Mukherjea
- Date of Judgment
24th April, 1973
- Parties Involved
Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, who challenged land reform laws affecting his property rights.
Respondent: State of Kerala, defending constitutional amendments that curtailed property rights.
- Facts of the Case
The Kerala government enacted land reform laws that sought to limit land ownership.
Kesavananda Bharati challenged these laws, arguing they violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Around the same time, several constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments) expanded Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
The key conflict was whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution or whether there were inherent limits.
- Issues Raised
Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
Does Article 368 confer unlimited power of amendment to Parliament?
Are there inherent limitations to the amending power under the Constitution?
- Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner contended that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute. While Parliament can amend, it cannot fundamentally alter the nature of the Constitution itself.
It was argued that Fundamental Rights are essential to individual liberty and dignity, and thus form the heart of the Constitution. If Parliament could amend or abrogate them entirely, it would defeat the very purpose of having a written Constitution with guaranteed rights.
The petitioner also emphasized that the basic principles of democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers cannot be compromised. These principles form the very framework of the Indian polity, and allowing Parliament to amend them without restraint would open the door to authoritarianism.
In support, the petitioner relied on earlier precedents such as Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where it was held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Kerala & Union of India):
The State argued that Parliament has plenary (complete) power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. There is no express limitation on its amending power in the constitutional text.
They emphasized that no distinction exists between an “ordinary law” and a “constitutional amendment”, since amendments are carried out by a special majority reflecting the will of the people through their elected representatives.
The respondents further contended that the will of the people is supreme in a democracy, and Parliament, as their representative body, should not be constrained in reshaping the Constitution to reflect evolving socio-economic needs.
They argued that judicially-imposed restrictions would unduly limit parliamentary sovereignty and hinder reforms essential for India’s progress, especially in the areas of land reform and redistribution of wealth.
- Judgment / Final Decision
The case resulted in a historic 7–6 split judgment, the narrowest possible margin in a 13-judge bench, highlighting how contentious the issue was.
The Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy its “Basic Structure.”
The 24th and 25th Amendments were upheld, meaning Parliament’s power to amend was recognized, but the Court simultaneously laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine to serve as a permanent limitation on this power.
Thus, while the amendments challenged in the case survived, the ruling became a landmark check on future parliamentary action.
In effect, the verdict balanced Parliamentary supremacy with constitutional supremacy, ensuring neither was absolute.
- Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
- The Court reasoned that Article 368 does indeed provide broad power to amend the Constitution, but this does not mean that Parliament has the power to rewrite or destroy the Constitution itself.
A Constitution is meant to endure for generations, and therefore, certain foundational principles must remain inviolable, even in the face of political majorities.
The Court identified certain elements as forming the Basic Structure of the Constitution, which cannot be amended:
Supremacy of the Constitution (the Constitution is above all organs of government).
Democratic and Republican form of government (free elections, popular sovereignty).
Rule of Law (all actions of the state must be governed by law, not arbitrary power).
Separation of Powers (checks and balances between legislature, executive, and judiciary).
Judicial Review (courts as guardians of the Constitution).
Fundamental Rights (the essential core that guarantees liberty and equality).
The Court made clear that while Parliament may modify, expand, or amend these features, it cannot destroy or abrogate them. For example, Parliament could regulate property rights but could not abolish the concept of judicial review or democracy itself.
This reasoning gave rise to the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became the central principle for judging the validity of future constitutional amendments.
- Conclusion / Observations
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is widely regarded as the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence because it defined the delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. By propounding the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that while Parliament retained wide powers to amend the Constitution, such powers were not absolute and could not be exercised in a manner that would destroy the very identity of the Constitution.
This doctrine acts as a safeguard against authoritarian tendencies by preventing any ruling majority from altering the fundamental character of India’s democratic and constitutional framework. It ensures that principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, and protection of fundamental rights remain untouchable core values that cannot be diluted or abolished through mere constitutional amendments.
The judgment preserved the spirit of democracy envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, while simultaneously acknowledging the need for flexibility and adaptability in constitutional governance. It struck a careful balance: allowing Parliament to amend and update provisions to meet socio-economic needs, but prohibiting any attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a way that would dismantle its essential structure.
Over the decades, the Basic Structure Doctrine has been repeatedly invoked in cases such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), thereby reinforcing its vitality and permanence in Indian constitutional law. These subsequent judgments confirm that Kesavananda Bharati was not an isolated decision, but rather the foundation of a living doctrine that continues to safeguard constitutional democracy.
The case’s significance extends beyond mere legal doctrine — it reflects a profound philosophical commitment to the idea of India as a constitutional democracy, where no institution, not even Parliament, has unfettered power. It reassures citizens that the judiciary stands as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, capable of striking down amendments that attempt to erode the values of liberty, equality, and justice.
In conclusion, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment is not just a legal precedent but a constitutional milestone that continues to shape India’s political and legal landscape. It enshrines the principle that the Constitution is not merely a legal document but a social contract and moral compass for governance. Its enduring legacy lies in its ability to ensure that while laws and policies may change with time, the fundamental ethos of the Indian Constitution remains preserved for future generations.
