Authored By: Anuska Maity
Shri Shikshayatan College, Kolkata
- Case Title & Citation
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461.
This is one of the most important constitutional law cases decided by the Supreme Court of India. The judgment is popularly known for establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
- Court Name & Bench
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 13-judge Constitutional Bench (largest bench in Indian judicial history)
Some Judges: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri (presiding),
Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, A.A. Alagiriswami.
The bench delivered multiple opinions with a 7:6 majority.
- Date of Judgment
24 April 1973.
- Parties Involved
Petitioner
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala.
He approached the Court under Article 32, challenging Kerala land reform laws which, he claimed, violated his fundamental rights—especially right to property under Articles 25, 26, and 31.
Respondent
State of Kerala & Union of India.
The State defended the constitutionality of its land reform legislations, while the Union defended the unlimited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- Facts of the Case (Chronological & Concise)
Kerala Land Reform Acts of 1963 and amendments imposed restrictions on religious institutions, including mutts, by allowing the State to take over large tracts of land.
The petitioner argued that these laws violated freedom of religion, right to manage religious affairs, and property rights.
Meanwhile, Parliament had passed several constitutional amendments, such as:
24th Amendment (1971): gave Parliament unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution.
25th Amendment (1971): curtailed the right to property under Article 31.
29th Amendment (1972): added two Kerala land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, giving them protection from judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati challenged these amendments as well, arguing that Parliament could not alter the basic framework of the Constitution.
The case was referred to the largest-ever Constitutional Bench due to the fundamental question of the extent of Parliament’s amending power.
The matter thus evolved from a simple property dispute to a historic constitutional confrontation regarding the nature of the Constitution.
Issues Raised
Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
Can Fundamental Rights be amended or completely taken away through a constitutional amendment?
Is there any inherent limitation on Parliament’s amending power?
Was the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments constitutionally valid?
Do the impugned Kerala land reform laws violate fundamental rights?
- Arguments of the Parties
Arguments by the Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati)
Parliament is not supreme; only the Constitution is supreme.
Article 368 only allows amendment, not destruction or altering the essential features.
Certain features such as democracy, equality, secularism, judicial review, and federalism form part of the basic structure, which cannot be amended.
Constitution makers did not intend to give Parliament the power to rewrite the entire Constitution.
The 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments curtail property rights and limit judicial review, threatening the balance of the Constitution.
Previous cases like Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) restricted Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights, and this principle should be upheld.
Arguments by the Respondents (State & Union Government)
Parliament represents the will of the people and must have full amending power. No part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, is beyond Parliament’s reach. The term “amendment” under Article 368 includes addition, deletion, or modification. Restrictions in land reforms were necessary to implement social justice and equality.
Judicial review cannot be used to strike down constitutional amendments enacted by Parliament.
Earlier decisions restricting amendment power (like Golak Nath) should be reversed.
- Judgment / Final Decision
Verdict:
By a 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited.
Key Outcomes
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. (This overruled the Golak Nath ruling.)
But Parliament cannot destroy or alter the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment was upheld (Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights).
The 25th Amendment was partly upheld (directive principles can override property rights but judicial review cannot be completely removed).
The 29th Amendment was upheld, meaning the Kerala land reform laws could be placed in the Ninth Schedule, but they would still be examined to ensure they do not damage the basic structure.
The Court did not define the entire list of “basic structure” elements, but identified some essential features.
- Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
Development of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Court reasoned that:
The Constitution is not like an ordinary law; it is a permanent framework for governance. Article 368 allows amendments but does not allow Parliament to destroy its essential identity. If Parliament had unlimited power, it could abolish:
- democracy
- independence of judiciary
- secularism
- federalism
- free elections
— and convert India into a dictatorship, which was never the intent of the Constitution. Thus, the power to amend is different from the power to rewrite.
Meaning of “Amendment”
The Court held that “amend” means:
improvement, modification, or change within limits, not complete destruction of the foundational principles.
Judicial Review Retained
The Court declared:
Judicial review is a core feature.
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that removes or substantially damages this power.
Protection of Fundamental Rights
While Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, it cannot: abolish them entirely, or alter their essential character.
Precedents Cited
The Court examined:
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The reasoning harmonized the earlier conflicting doctrines and established a principled limit on parliamentary power.
Doctrine of Basic Structure — Key Components Identified
Though the Court did not give an exhaustive list, it highlighted key features: Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican & democratic form of government
Secular character of the Constitution
Separation of powers
Federal character
Judicial review
Rule of law
Free and fair elections
Limited amending power
Independence of judiciary
These elements form the backbone of Indian constitutional democracy.
- Conclusion / Observations
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a milestone in Indian constitutional history. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution’s core values cannot be altered even by a majority in Parliament. This doctrine maintains a balanced relationship between Parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.
The case preserved India’s democratic ethos by preventing the possibility of authoritarian amendments. At the same time, it allowed Parliament enough flexibility to amend and update the Constitution to meet evolving social and economic needs.
From a legal perspective, this judgment strengthened:
judicial review, protection of fundamental rights, and constitutional stability. From a governance perspective, it ensured that India would always remain: democratic, secular, federal, and governed by rule of law.
Overall, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala continues to be the cornerstone of constitutional interpretation in India, influencing numerous later cases including Minerva Mills (1980), I.R. Coelho (2007), and NJAC (2015).
BLUEBOOK (20th ed.) REFERENCES (20 Citations)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
- I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643.
- Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 458.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 845.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1789.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2299.
- Waman Rao v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 271.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 1.
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 651.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1.
- H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India (4th ed. 1991).
- M.P. JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed. 2014).
- GRANVILLE AUSTIN, Working a Democratic Constitution (1999).
- T.R.S. ALLAN, Constitutional Justice (2001).
- S.P. SATHE, Judicial Activism in India (2d ed. 2002).
- Upendra Baxi, The Judiciary as a Resource for Indian Democracy, 10 India Int’l Ctr. Q. 143 (1983).
- S. Krishnaswamy, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of Basic Structure Doctrine, 12 Nat’l L. Sch. India Rev. 95 (2000).
- Gary J. Jacobsohn, An Unconstitutional Constitution?, 4 Int’l J. Const. L. 460 (2006).
- N.R. Madhava Menon, The Supreme Court and Constitutional Amendments, 15 J. Indian L. Inst. 305 (1973).
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX (Nov. 1949).
