Authored By: Krati Agrawal
LLOYD LAW COLLEGE
AIR 1973 SC 1461
(1973) 4 SCC 225
Supreme Court of India
This case was heard by the largest bench in the history of the Supreme Court – a 13-judgeConstitutional Bench.
Judges
1) S.M. Sikri, C.J.
2) J.M. Shelat
3) K.S. Hegde
4) A.N. Grover
5) A.N. Ray
6) P. Jaganmohan Reddy
7) H.R. Khanna
8) D.G. Palekar
9) K.K. Mathew
10) M.H. Beg
11) S.N. Dwivedi
12) Y.V. Chandrachud
13) K. K. Alagiriswami
(Note: This composition is important because the case’s outcome heavily depended onjudge to-judge reasoning.)
Bench type
It is a Full / Constitutional Bench of 13 judges.
Date of Judgement
Judgment was passe on 24 April 1973.
Petitioner
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, head of the Edneer Mutt (a Hindureligious monastery) located in Kerala. He approached the Supreme Court to challenge thevalidity of Kerala land reform laws that sought to restrict the mutt’s property rights. Respondents
State of Kerala & Union of India, the government defended the constitutional amendmentsthat gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Background
After independence, the Indian government introduced land reform laws aimed at redistributing land and abolishing feudal structures. Many landowners and religious institutions challenged these laws because they affected the right to property under Article19(1)(f) and Article 31. To protect such laws from judicial review, the Parliament passedaseries of constitutional amendments:
1) First Amendment (1951) – introduced Article 31A & 31B 2) Fourth Amendment (1955) – further limited right to property 3) Seventeenth Amendment (1964) – added more land laws to the Ninth Schedule 4) Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971) – gave Parliament explicit power to amendanypart of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights
5) Twenty-fifth Amendment (1971) – curtailed the right to property compensation6) Twenty-ninth Amendment (1972) – added Kerala Land Reform Act to the NinthSchedule
Events Leading to the Case
1) Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which tookover lands belonging to the mutt.
2) During the pendency of the case, the government passed the 29th Amendment, placing the impugned land reforms into the Ninth Schedule.
3) This expanded the scope of the case from a mere property dispute to a debate about the limits of Parliament’s amendment powers under Article 368.
Central Conflict
Whether Parliament has the unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This conflict had been developing due to contradictory judgments:
1) Shankari Prasad (1951): Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights 2) Golaknath (1967): Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights 3) The government sought to overturn Golaknath by passing the 24th &25th Amendments.
Thus, Kesavananda Bharati’s petition became the platform for resolving this constitutional question.
Issues Raised
Majorly 5 issues were raised in the case which led it to be the landmark judgment in the Indian history.
1) Does Article 368 give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution? 2) Can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights? 3) Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments valid? 4) Is there any “basic feature” or “essential element” of the Constitution that cannot beamended?
5) Do laws place under the Ninth Schedule escape judicial review? Arguments of the Parties
- a) Petitioner’s Arguments (Kesavananda Bharati)
- Limited Powers of Parliament:
The Constitution created a system of checks and balances.
Parliament cannot destroy or alter the core identity of the Constitution. b. Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct:
Fundamental Rights form the basic structure, so they cannot be amended. Parliament cannot convert India from a democracy to a dictatorship throughamendments.
- Doctrine of Basic Structure (emerging idea):
Some essential features like democracy, rule of law, judicial review, and
separation of powers must remain intact.
- Judicial Review cannot be removed:
If Parliament can amend everything, then judicial review becomes meaningless.
- 24th & 25th Amendments are unconstitutional:
They give Parliament unlimited power, violating the Constitution itself.
- b) Respondent’s Arguments (Government of India)
- Parliament’s Amending Power is Unlimited
Article 368 allows Parliament to amend “any part” of the Constitution. The word “amendment” includes addition, deletion, or modificationof anyprovision.
- People are supreme through Parliament
Parliament represents the will of the people; therefore, its amendment power should not be restricted.
- Judiciary Cannot Restrict Parliament
Courts cannot impose limitations not mentioned in the Constitution.
- Fundamental Rights Are Not Above Parliament
They can be changed or removed if the democratic legislature decides so. e. Purpose of Amendments
To implement social justice and reduce economic inequalities (landreforms, redistribution).
- Ninth Schedule laws are immune
As per Article 31B, laws in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged.
Judgment / Final Decision
Verdict (7:6 Majority)
The Supreme Court delivered a historic split judgment.
Key Outcomes
1) Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
BUT:
2) Parliament cannot alter the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution This means Parliament’s power is not unlimited.
Any amendment violating the Basic Structure will be struck down 3) 24th Amendment – Valid
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution.
4) 25th Amendment – Partly Valid
“Compensation” replaced by “amount” was allowed
However, judicial review cannot be completely excluded.
5) 29th Amendment – Valid (but subject to basic structure test)
Laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule are not automatically immune; courts canstill examine them.
Impact
1) The Supreme Court prevented Parliament from turning India into a one-party authoritarian state through constitutional amendments.
2) It preserved democracy, judicial review, and constitutional supremacy. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
1) Concept of “Basic Structure Doctrine
The Court held that the Constitution has certain fundamental features that cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment.
These include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
- Separation of powers
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Democracy and free elections
- Independence of judiciary
- Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles j. Limited power of amendment
This list is not exhaustive; more features were added in later cases 2) Interpretation of Article 368
The term “amendment” does not mean “destruction” or “repeal.”
Parliament can “revise” or “modify,” but cannot abrogate the Constitution’s coreidentity.
3) Limitation on Constituent Power
Parliament’s amending power is derivative, not original
The original Constituent Assembly had unlimited power, but Parliament does not. 4) Preservation of Democratic Framework
The Court emphasized India’s democratic and republican nature cannot be altered.
If Parliament had unlimited powers, it could abolish free elections or judiciary—this would be disastrous.
5) Ninth Schedule & Judicial Review
Placing laws in the Ninth Schedule is not a “magic shield.”
Courts can still examine whether such laws violate basic structure elements likeequality or judicial review.
6) Balance Between Rights and Social Justice
The Court supported land reforms and social welfare.
However, it maintained that social justice must operate within constitutional limits. 7) Justice H.R. Khanna’s Decisive Opinion
Justice Khanna’s vote became the turning point.
His key points:
- Parliament may amend any provision.
- But it cannot alter the essential features forming the basic structure. This single vote created the majority and protected the Constitution.
Conclusion / Observations
1) Significance of the Case
Kesavananda Bharati is the most important constitutional law decision in Indianhistory.
It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which acts as a safeguard against abuse of constitutional amendment power.
2) Preservation of Democracy
The judgment ensured that:
- India remains a constitutional democracy, not a parliamentary
dictatorship.
- No future government can alter the essence of the Constitutionfor political gain.
3) Continuing Relevance
The doctrine has been reaffirmed in several landmark cases:
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
4) Critical Reflection (Objective)
The decision protected the Constitution from potential authoritarian misuse.
At the same time, it strengthened judicial review, maintaining the balance between democratic institutions.
Critics argue it gives enormous power to the judiciary, but supporters maintainit is necessary to preserve constitutionalism.
5) Legacy
6) The Basic Structure Doctrine is today seen as the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that no government—however powerful—can dismantle the fundamental features of the Constitution.
