Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 

Introduction 

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is a watershed judgement in Indian constitutional law. It established the basic structure doctrine—a principle that places substantive limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitutional. The case addressed the tension between Parliament’s legislative powers and the protection of fundamental constitutional principles and rights. 

Decided by a 13-judge bench, it remains one of the most significant rulings in India’s constitutional history. 

The Kesavananda Bharati case cannot be understood in isolation. It came at a time when India was undergoing rapid social and political transformation under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The government’s emphasis on poverty alleviation and redistribution of land brought it into conflict with wealthy landholders, religious institutions, and entrenched social hierarchies. Earlier cases like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Golak Nath (1967) had already tested the boundaries of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. In Golak Nath, the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, which directly challenged the government’s reformist agenda. This backdrop set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati litigation, which ultimately became a constitutional turning point in Indian history. 

Facts 

Sri Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala, owned certain lands that came under threat of acquisition due to state land reforms. The Kerala government enacted the Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts in 1969 and 1971, which authorized the acquisition of excess land from large landowners, including religious institutions.

Kesavananda Bharati challenged the constitutional validity of these amendments, arguing that they violated his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26), freedom to acquire property (Article 19(1)(f), and protection against the compulsory acquisition of property without compensation (Article 31). 

The case reached the Supreme Court after Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

The dispute originated when the Edneer Mutt, headed by Kesavananda Bharati, faced the risk of losing its property under Kerala’s progressive land reforms. The petitioner’s challenge, however, went far beyond personal interest. It questioned whether Parliament’s sweeping amendments—especially the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments—could override the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The case, therefore, was not just about land, but about defining the extent of Parliament’s authority. 

24th Amendment (1971): Explicitly gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. 

25th Amendment (1971): Restricted judicial review in matters relating to property and sought to prioritize Directive Principles over certain fundamental rights. 

29th Amendment (1972): Placed Kerala land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule, aiming to shield them from judicial review. 

By challenging these, the petitioner brought into question the very foundation of constitutional governance—whether Parliament was supreme, or whether there existed inviolable principles beyond its reach. 

Legal Issues 

The principle issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited. ● Whether Parliament can amend fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. 
• Whether there are constitutional limitations—particularly relating to the “basic structure”—beyond which Parliament cannot go in amending the Constitution. 
• The validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments affecting parliamentary and judicial powers. 

The bench of 13 judges—the largest ever in Indian history—was tasked with answering questions of profound constitutional importance: 

1. Extent of Parliament’s Amending Power: Did Article 368 give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution, or were there inherent limits? 
2. Amendability of Fundamental Rights: Could rights like equality, freedom, and property be amended or abolished in the name of social justice? 
3. Basic Structure Doctrine: Was there a set of principles so fundamental to the Constitution that even Parliament could not alter them? 
4. Judicial Review vs. Legislative Supremacy: Could courts continue to review constitutional amendments, or was Parliament the final authority? 

Arguments 

Petitioner’s Arguments

Kesavananda Bharati’s counsel, led by senior advocate Nani Palkivala, asserted that: 

• Parliament’s amending power is subject to constitutional limits and cannot abridge fundamental rights. 
• The amendments violated core features of the Constitution, including judicial review and separation of powers. 
• The right to property is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away arbitrarily.
• Judicial review must remain intact to preserve constitutional governance.

Petitioner (Nani Palkivala, M.K. Nambiar): 

Stressed that Parliament was a creature of the Constitution, not above it. 

Asserted that certain principles—like democracy, secularism, judicial review, and federalism—were part of the Constitution’s identity and could not be destroyed. 

Pointed out that unchecked amendment powers would reduce the Constitution to “a plaything of the majority in Parliament.” 

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Kerala) 

The state argued that: 

• Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution to meet socio-economic reforms. 
• The land reform laws serve an essential public purpose of redistributing land and achieving social justice.
• The right to property is not absolute and may be regulated in the public interest. 
• Curtailment of judicial review was necessary to prevent courts from obstructing progressive laws. 

Respondents (State of Kerala, H.M. Seervai): 

Argued that the Constitution was meant to be flexible, allowing Parliament to adapt it to changing socio-economic realities. 

Insisted that no provision was immune from amendment, including fundamental rights, as they had to yield to national progress. 

Warned that judicial restrictions on Parliament would undermine democracy by placing unelected judges above elected representatives. 

Judgement 

On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict of 7:6. The majority held that: 

Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution. 

The basic structure doctrine was formulated and affirmed. It protects core principles such as: 

• Supreme of the Constitution, 
• Republican and democratic form of government, 
• Secularism, 
• Separation of powers,
• Federalism, 
• Judicial review, 
• Fundamental rights. 

The 24th amendment, which affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights, was upheld subject to the basic structure limitation. 

Parts of the 25th Amendment were upheld, but other portions limiting the scope of judicial review were struck down as unconstitutional. 

The Court emphasized that while the Constitution is flexible and amendable, Parliament cannot effect changes that destroy its identity and fundamental framework. 

The dissenting six judges held the view that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was virtually unrestricted. 

Delivered on 24 April 1973, the verdict was a razor-thin 7:6 split. 

Majority Opinion (7 Judges): 

Held that Parliament’s amending power was not unlimited. 

Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that certain features like the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, democracy, and secularism could not be destroyed. 

Justice H.R. Khanna’s pivotal opinion was decisive; while agreeing that Parliament had wide powers, he insisted that the “basic structure” of the Constitution was beyond alteration. 

Minority Opinion (6 Judges): 

Favored complete parliamentary supremacy.

Believed Article 368 gave Parliament unrestricted amending power, even over fundamental rights. 

Their view aligned more closely with the government’s position. 

Impact and Significance 

The Kesavananda Bharati judgement is hailed as a doctrinal cornerstone in Indian constitutional law. Its critical impacts include: 

• Judicial Safeguard: it empowered the judiciary to invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the core framework of the Constitution. 
• Limit on Legislature: it checked Parliament’s power and ensured that certain features, called the “basic structure,” remain inviolable. 
• Balance of Power: The ruling preserved the balance between transformative socio-economic legislation and protection of fundamental constitutional principles. 
• Legacy: The basic structure doctrine continues to guide constitutional jurisprudence, influencing key later cases like Minerva Mills, Indira Gandhi election case, and Aruna Shanbaug. 

The Kesavananda Bharati case became a constitutional landmark for several reasons: 

Judicial Safeguard: Empowered courts to strike down amendments that damaged the Constitution’s identity. 

Check on Legislative Power: Ensured that a political majority could not fundamentally alter the nation’s democratic framework.

Doctrine of Balance: Maintained equilibrium between Parliament’s desire for reform and the Constitution’s foundational values. 

Influence on Later Cases: 

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down parts of the 39th Amendment for violating the basic structure. 

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reaffirmed that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was part of the basic structure. 

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) clarified that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could be struck down if they violated the basic structure. 

NJAC Case (2015) reinforced judicial primacy in appointments, striking down constitutional amendments that undermined judicial independence. 

The Kesavananda Bharati case became a constitutional landmark for several reasons: 

Judicial Safeguard: Empowered courts to strike down amendments that damaged the Constitution’s identity. 

Check on Legislative Power: Ensured that a political majority could not fundamentally alter the nation’s democratic framework. 

Doctrine of Balance: Maintained equilibrium between Parliament’s desire for reform and the Constitution’s foundational values. 

Influence on Later Cases:

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down parts of the 39th Amendment for violating the basic structure. 

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reaffirmed that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was part of the basic structure. 

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) clarified that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could be struck down if they violated the basic structure. 

NJAC Case (2015) reinforced judicial primacy in appointments, striking down constitutional amendments that undermined judicial independence. 

Conclusion 

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a seminal case that enshrined judicial review as a constitutional safeguard and articulated the basic structure doctrine, marking a purposeful limitation on parliamentary amendments. It thereby fortified the rule of law, democracy, and constitutionalism in India. 

The Kesavananda Bharati case continues to be the bedrock of Indian constitutionalism. It reaffirmed that while the Constitution is flexible enough to adapt to changing times, it is not so pliable that its essential character can be dismantled. 

Even today, whenever constitutional amendments are challenged, courts invoke the Basic Structure Doctrine as the ultimate safeguard. The judgment thus embodies the delicate balance between progress and preservation, between the will of the majority and the enduring values of democracy, secularism, and rule of law.