Authored By: Pragya Paromita Mitra
Sister Nivedita University
Case Title & Citation:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225
Court Name & Bench:
Supreme Court of India, 13-judge bench (largest bench in Indian judicial history)
Date of Judgement:
24th April 1973
Parties Involved:
Petitioner: Kesavan Anda Bharati, Head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala
Respondent: State of Kerala
Facts of the Case:
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu religious institution (Edneer Mutt, Kerala), challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of the property of his religious institution under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969.
He argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (management of religious affairs), 14 (equality), and 19 (freedom to manage property) of the Constitution
The case evolved into a broader constitutional debate on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Issues:
Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Whether the amendment of the Constitution could alter its “basic structure.”
Arguments:
Petitioner’s Side:
Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental structure.
Certain basic features, such as Fundamental Rights, democracy, and the rule of law, are beyond Parliament’s reach.
Respondent’s Side (State):
Parliament has plenary power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Limitations on property and other rights were within the scope of the Constitution.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court (7:6 majority) held that:
Parliament can amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure or framework.
The “basic structure” includes: supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and parliamentary democracy.
The Kerala Land Reforms Act was upheld, but the ruling established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
Significance:
This case is considered a landmark in Indian constitutional law.
It struck a balance between Parliamentary sovereignty and protection of the Constitution’s core principles
Court’s Reasoning:
- Balance Between Parliamentary Power and Fundamental Structure
The Court acknowledged that Parliament has wide powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution.
However, it reasoned that this power is not absolute; Parliament cannot use it to destroy or emasculate the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
The idea was to protect the core framework that ensures India remains a democratic, secular, and constitutional state.
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
The Court emphasised that certain principles—such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights—form the foundation of the Constitution.
Any constitutional amendment that violates this “basic structure” would be invalid, even if enacted by a two-thirds majority in Parliament
- Judicial Review:
The Court maintained that judicial review is essential to prevent Parliament from undermining the Constitution.
It reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional integrity
Legal Doctrines Used:
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
Established in this case.
Limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Ensures core constitutional principles remain inviolable.
- Judicial Review:
Strengthened by recognising that the Supreme Court can strike down amendments that violate the basic structure.
- Doctrine of Limited Amending Power:
Parliament can amend, but not in a way that destroys the Constitution’s essential features.
Conclusion:
The Kesavananda Bharati case is the most significant case in Indian constitutional law.
It created a check on parliamentary power, protecting the Constitution from potential misuse.
Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which continues to guide courts in evaluating constitutional amendments.
Essentially, the Court said: “Parliament can amend, but it cannot uproot the Constitution’s foundational pillars.”
