Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Introduction

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala is a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law, laying the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Decided by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 24 April 1973, it remains the most significant constitutional case in Indian legal history. It addressed the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and affirmed that such power is not absolute but is subject to inherent limitations derived from the Constitution itself. The ruling continues to influence constitutional jurisprudence by ensuring that certain foundational principles of the Constitution remain inviolable.

Background

Following independence, India adopted a written Constitution in 1950. With time, Parliament used its power under Article 368 to amend various provisions, including Fundamental Rights. This led to a confrontation between the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.

In Shankari Prasad v Union of India [1951] AIR 458 and Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan [1965] AIR 845, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. However, the tide shifted with I C Golaknath v State of Punjab [1967] AIR 1643, where the Court held that Parliament could not curtail Fundamental Rights, declaring constitutional amendments as “law” within the meaning of Article 13.

In response, the Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. The 24th Amendment restored Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution. The 25th Amendment curtailed the right to property and limited judicial review in matters of compensation. The 29th Amendment inserted certain Kerala land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule, attempting to immunise them from judicial scrutiny.

Facts of the Case

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended. His claim was that the Act infringed upon his Fundamental Rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, and 31 of the Constitution. During the proceedings, the petition broadened into a larger constitutional question: could Parliament amend the Constitution in a way that abrogated or altered its basic features.

Issues

1. Does Article 368 give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution?
2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
3. Is there a basic structure or framework of the Constitution that cannot be altered?
4. Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments valid?

Arguments

Petitioners contended that Parliament’s power to amend was not absolute. Relying on Golaknath, they argued that Fundamental Rights were sacrosanct and could not be abridged. They maintained that the Constitution had an inherent basic structure that could not be tampered with.

Respondents argued that constitutional amendments are not within the purview of Article 13, and hence cannot be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights. They maintained that Article 368 empowered Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution without limitation.

Judgment

 The Court, in a 7:6 majority, held that although Parliament has wide powers under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The majority opinion introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that the power to amend does not include the power to destroy.

The majority upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, affirming Parliament’s amending power. However, it struck down parts of the 25th Amendment that excluded judicial review. The 29th Amendment was upheld, but laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule could still be tested against the basic structure.

The minority, led by Justice A N Ray, supported unlimited parliamentary sovereignty and rejected the idea of inherent limitations.

Basic Structure

Doctrine Although the Court did not provide an exhaustive list, over the years, the following elements have been considered part of the Constitution’s basic structure:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Rule of Law
3. Separation of Powers
4. Judicial Review
5. Federalism
6. Secularism
7. Free and Fair Elections
8. Parliamentary Democracy
9. Independence of the Judiciary
10. Protection of Fundamental Rights

Subsequent cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain [1975] Supp SCC 1, Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India [1980] 3 SCC 625, and I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu [2007] 2 SCC 1 reaffirmed and elaborated on this doctrine.

Significance

The judgment is a monumental assertion of constitutional supremacy. It introduced a doctrine that acts as a safeguard against majoritarian overreach. The Court ensured that the Constitution remains a living document but retains its core identity.

It was later challenged during the Emergency (1975–77), when the 42nd Amendment attempted to override the doctrine. This was nullified in Minerva Mills, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional structure.

Criticism

 The doctrine has faced criticism for its lack of textual basis and its reliance on judicial interpretation. Some see it as judicial overreach, arguing that unelected judges are limiting the democratic mandate. Others argue that it undermines parliamentary sovereignty.

However, many scholars and jurists support the doctrine for preserving constitutionalism and the rule of law.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. It struck a balance between the need for constitutional evolution and the necessity of preserving foundational principles. The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that while the Constitution can adapt to changing times, it cannot be stripped of its essential identity. This case remains a guardian of constitutional morality, democracy, and the rule of law.

Table of Cases Cited (OSCOLA Format):

1. Shankari Prasad v Union of India [1951] AIR 458 (SC)
2. Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan [1965] AIR 845 (SC)
3. I C Golaknath v State of Punjab [1967] AIR 1643 (SC)
4. Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 (SC)
5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain [1975] Supp SCC 1 (SC)
6. Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India [1980] 3 SCC 625 (SC)
7. I R Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu [2007] 2 SCC 1 (SC)