Authored By: Abhik Dutta
The Assam Royal Global University
Introduction
The story of this case begins with Kerala’s bold land reforms in the 1950s and 1960s, which had an objective to break up vast estates held by rich landlords and hand over land to the needy, poor and landless. In 1963, the Kerala government passed the Kerala Land Reforms Act[1], limiting how much land anyone could own and thus conferring powers on the state to seize and redistribute any excess. At the heart of it was Sri Kesavananda Bharati, the revered pontiff of Edneer Mutt, a prominent Hindu religious institution in Kerala. In 1970 the government implemented stricter rules on land owned by such institutions; he took the fight to the Kerala High Court, challenging the Act’s constitutionality. The case reached all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the state. Meanwhile, Parliament struck back with the 24th Constitutional Amendment, trying to limit the judiciary’s scope and narrow judicial review. Shortly after that came the 25th and 29th Amendments, that gradually undermined fundamental rights and claimed that the Parliament could alter or twitch any part of the Constitution. Undiscouraged and determined, Sri Kesavananda Bharati filed a fresh petition, arguing that these changes severely mangled the Constitution’s basic essence and spirit; as a result this iconic judgment paved the way to judicial innovation of the “basic structure doctrine” and it curbed Parliament’s amending powers. This landmark case is engraved and imprinted in Indian constitutional history as a foundation of democracy and the rule of law, with Bharati himself as an eternal symbol of a remarkable legal battle.
Facts of the Case
India’s government operates through three separate branches, each handling its own responsibilities without interference. The legislature makes laws; the executive is primarily responsible for implementing those laws while the judiciary interprets those laws and protects it. However, the country had been a witness to a conflict between legislature and judiciary in 1970’s. This case led to a distinct and notable judgment that clearly demarcated the powers of the different branches of the government ensuring that the constitutional essence is safeguarded.
The case begins when a chief of a religious monastery in Kasaragod, Kerala in the early 1970’s faced challenges from state policies for its objective of redistributing property. Bharati, as the chief of Edneer Mutt, had possession over a few pieces of land linked to the institution’s functions and customs. In 1969 the newly passed laws enabled the acquisition of segments of these properties which compelled him to seek judicial intervention from the apex court of the country in the month of March, 1970 through the mechanism of article 32[2] of the Constitution of India for the implementation of rights guaranteed in the constitution to practice and propagate religion, manage religious affairs, equality and ownership freedoms and protections against forced seizures. He questioned the actions of the state as well as the other amendments stating that it undermined mechanisms for protections of citizens further arguing that the alterations threatened core principles, ideals of the constitution.[3]
Legal Issues
The following legal issues were raised in this case.
- Can a Constitutional amendment under article 368 affect the fundamental rights guaranteed in part III of the Constitution?
- Is the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 valid under the Constitution?
- Is the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1972 constitutionally valid?
- Is the 29th Constitutional Amendment Act valid and how far can Parliament go in using its power to change the Constitution?
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s argument –
The petitioner’s written submissions strongly back the majority ruling in the Golak Nath case, arguing that the parliament lacks authority to alter any part of the constitution especially the Fundamental rights. It was asserted that article 368 outlines only the procedure of amendment but does not provide any framework for the content of such amendment and the instrument of article 13(2) prohibits the state from making any law that abridges these rights. It was argued that these disputed constitutional changes broke people’s basic freedoms, went beyond parliament’s scope and weakened constitutional foundational elements and eroded people’s right to own property. The 24th, 25th and 29th amendment acts were deemed unlawful for wearing down judicial scrutiny and the balance of governmental branches.
Respondent’s argument –
The respondent argued that the Parliament must have very wide, almost unrestricted powers to change the Constitution under Article 368, because such power was necessary to reshape society and the economy in a fair way. According to this view, Parliament’s amending power was not meant to be narrowly read or confined to only a few provisions, but extended to any part of the Constitution whenever needed to serve larger public interests. The State submitted that without this broad power to amend, it would be impossible to effectively remove old feudal systems, update land relations, and correct historical inequalities that had kept large sections of people poor and disadvantaged. The amendments were presented as tools to bring in socio-economic justice by breaking down outdated social and economic structures and replacing them with arrangements that are more equal, modern, and welfare-oriented.
It was further argued that the right to property should not be considered as an absolute fundamental right that stands above public interest. Instead, it was stressed that this right can be reasonably controlled, limited, or modified by law when required for the benefit of the community, such as for land reforms, redistribution, or other welfare measures. In this sense, regulation of property rights was seen as a legitimate and even necessary step to secure the common good and to ensure that resources are used in a way that benefits society at large, and not just a few landholders. The State further maintained that constitutional amendments directed towards promoting social justice, reducing poverty, and improving the living conditions of weaker sections were fully valid exercises of Parliament’s power and fell squarely within its legislative competence. Such amendments, according to respondent, were not an abuse of power but an intended use of Article 368 to fulfill the Constitution’s goals of equality, welfare, and a just social order.[4]
A brief analysis
The Supreme Court’s Golak Nath ruling first showed strong judicial power over the Constitution, but Kesavananda made it very clear that the judiciary has utmost authority and is guardian of the Constitution. In Kesavananda, the Court backed off on blocking changes to fundamental rights but gained power to check all amendments, not just those. If Parliament can freely amend, the Court can strike down any amendment that harms its ‘basic structure’. The judges aimed for balance between Parliament and the judiciary. It was reaffirmed that parliament can’t change the core values, ideals like secularism, democracy, or judicial freedom. The Court limited Parliament’s power so lawmakers serve the Constitution, not rule it. Parliament holds power in trust for people and can’t destroy the essence of constitution. The basic structure doctrine in this case safeguarded the soul and spirit of the living organic document of the country that is the Constitution. The Supreme Court decides what innate features are basic and clearly listed them. Some of the basic features were the secular, federal nature, parliamentary form of democracy.[5]
Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court in this landmark case ruled by a narrow 7-6 majority that Parliament can amend the Constitution, much like ordinary laws, to meet India’s socio-economic commitments to citizens. However, the majority—led by CJI S.M. Sikri, along with Justices K.S. Hegde, B.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, and H.R. Khanna—held that fundamental rights cannot be altered through amendments, and the Constitution’s basic structure must stay intact. The six dissenting judges—A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud—argued against granting Parliament unlimited amendment powers. The Court upheld the 24th Constitutional Amendment as valid. For the 25th Amendment, it declared the first part constitutional (intra vires) but struck down the second part as unconstitutional (ultra vires). This resolved open questions from the earlier Golaknath case, affirming Parliament’s amendment authority only if it preserves the Constitution’s basic structure—a principle courts must enforce.
Judges S.M. Sikri (CJI), K.S. Hegde, J.M. Shelat, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, A.N. Grover, H.R. Khanna, and B.K. Mukherjea formed the majority. They ruled that Parliament’s authority under Article 368 to amend lacks capacity to alter any essential features of the constitution. Any modification must leave the core framework absolutely untouched. The minority—Y.V. Chandrachud, D.G. Palekar, A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, K.K. Mathew, and S.N. Dwivedi—viewed Article 368 as empowering Parliament to add, revise, or repeal any provision, except those protecting fundamental rights. Justice Khanna added that boundless amendment power cannot touch the Constitution’s basic elements. Justices Mathew and Ray endorsed Parliament’s full authority but stressed the Constitution cannot be scrapped entirely, as that would leave no valid governmental system for lawmaking, adjudication, or execution.[6]
Significance of the Case
The Golaknath case (1967) imposed boundaries on political authority by making the amendment authority under Article 368 subordinate to the constraints of fundamental rights.
The basic structure doctrine affirms the Constitution’s core identity, which no amendment can dismantle. It strengthened exercise and power of judicial review. The Court recognizes its duty to safeguard and enforce foundational principles essential to the Constitution’s wholeness. Judicial independence forms the essence of the rule of law, incorporating both decisional autonomy and institutional autonomy. Under the rule of law, the scope of decision-making and discretion stays perpetually bounded by the Constitution, requiring adherence to constitutional conventions.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, stands as a turning point in Indian constitutional history. At its heart, it introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine—a powerful idea that says while Parliament can amend the Constitution to adapt to changing times, it cannot touch or destroy its most essential parts. These core elements include democracy, the rule of law, separation of powers between government branches, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen.This doctrine gave the judiciary a strong role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. Judges can now review any amendment and strike it down if it harms the basic structure, preventing any branch of government from gaining too much power. This principle is used to invalidate parts of a constitutional change that upset the balance between fundamental rights and government directives.
Even after more than 50 years, this distinct ruling remains highly relevant. It guides debates on new laws and amendments, ensuring India’s democracy stays strong and fair. Ultimately, this case shows the judiciary’s vital duty: to protect the Constitution’s soul, upholding justice, equality, and freedom for all future generations.
Reference(S):
[1] Kerala Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1964, Kerala Act 1 of 1964 (India).
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 32.
[3] Upasana Sarkar, Implications of the Judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, iPleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/ (last visited May 7, 2026).
[4] Vajiram & Ravi, Kesavananda Bharati Case 1973, Summary, Impacts https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/kesavananda-bharati-case/ (last visited May 7, 2026).
[5] Basic Instinct: A Landmark in Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973), AZB & Partners, https://www.azbpartners.com/bank/basic-instinct-a-landmark-in-modern-constitutional-jurisprudence-kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-1973/ (last visited May 7, 2026).
[6] Upasana Sarkar, Implications of the Judgement in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, iPleaders https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/ (last visited May 7, 2026).
