Author: Isha, Chandigarh Law college, CGC University
To The Point
The pivotal case in the Indian Constitution, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), was the historic thirteen-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court of India, headed by the Chief Justice S.M. Sikri. This case marked a turning point in constitutional jurisprudence. It was held that parliament can amend any part of the constitution except the basic structure of the constitution. This decision had a major impact on Indian society. The case was a constitutional turning point because it was the first case that came up with the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The judgment not only safeguarded the core identity of the Constitution but also reaffirmed the scope of judicial review and has since guided the trajectory of all future constitutional amendments. Before this case, parliament had unlimited power to amend any part of the constitution, but this case limits the parliament’s constituent powers under the Article 368 of the constitution. This article examines the Doctrine of basic structure as propounded in the cornerstone Kesavananda Bharati case.
Use of legal jargon
This judgment revolves around a few core Constitutional concepts:
Fundamental rights – Basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all individuals under Part III of the constitution.
Judicial Review – Review of the decisions made by the executive by the courts to ensure that they are not ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Amendment – Process of making changes or alteration such as addition, variation or repeal of any provision of the Constitution.
Article 368 – Deals with the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Article 13 – Ensures that any law that violating the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution becomes invalid or void.
Precedent Overruling – Doctrine allowing the court to replace an old legal principle with a new one.
Ultra Vires – Any act or law that goes beyond the authority granted by the Constitution or statute.
The Proof
Earlier Contradictions
Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), denied any limitation on Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights and curtailed the role of judicial review in constitutional amendments. However, later decisions like the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975), Minerva Mills case (1980), Waman Rao case (1981) gradually acknowledged the significance of judicial limitations.
Landmark Resolution: Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
FACTS – In 1963, Kerala Land Reforms Act was introduced imposing restrictions on land ownership and the government was granted power to acquire surplus land for redistribution, affecting religious institutions, including Kesavananda Bharati who was the head of Edneer Mutt. A petition was filed by Kesavananda Bharati on 21st March 1970, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
ISSUE – Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under article 368? Whether Parliament has power to amend or alter Fundamental Rights ? Whether an amendment can change basic structure? Validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th constitutional amendment.
JUDGMENT – The Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, established a new doctrine of basic structure. Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution of India under Article 368, but cannot alter, abrogate, or destroy the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution of India.
Abstract
This study focuses on the development of the Basic structure arising from the Kesavananda Bharti case,(1973). This case is one of the most important constitutional rulings in Indian legal history. Decided by a thirteen- judge bench, it established the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The Basic Structure is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution; rather, it embodies the principles that certain core features of the constitution are inviolable and cannot be altered or abrogated through the amending power. This judgment stands as a constitutional landmark, maintaining constitutional balance,safeguarding fundamental rights, and reinforcing judicial review and thus protecting democracy. Although the petitioner did not succeed, the judgment played a pivotal role in preserving Indian democracy and safeguarding the Constitution from losing its essential spirit and character. The object of this article is to highlight the doctrinal clarity introduced by the Basic structure doctrine and its continuing relevance in preserving constitutional identity.
Case laws
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The Supreme Court stated that the power of parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes power to amend fundamental rights. And also ruled that a constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13, therefore it cannot be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The Supreme Court held that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier stand and held that the term “Law” under Article 13 also includes constitutional Amendment Acts. Hence, Parliament cannot take away Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment Act.
Keshavananda Bharati Case (1973)
In this landmark case, a new Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution was established under Article 368. It was also stated that features like Secularism, Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Welfare State, Judicial Review, Separation of powers are part of Basic Structure and cannot be amended.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court observed that the right to free and fair elections is an integral part of the Basic Structure and judicial review is the foundation of democracy.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 4 and Section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment for violating the basic structure and, holding that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy as the part of Basic Structure.
Woman Rao Case (1981)
This judgment clarified the prospective and retrospective effect of amendments and reaffirmed judicial review as a safeguard against violations of the core principles of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a watershed moment in constitutional law. This case was the defining moment for Article 368. It preserves Fundamental Rights from being overridden by amendments and also reinforces that the Constitution is Supreme, not Parliament. Through this Doctrine, the Supreme Court has ensured the protection of essential constitutional principles. Its evolution through the landmark cases demonstrates that constitutionalism, not parliamentary supremacy, forms the bedrock of India’s legal system. It strikes a necessary balance by allowing Parliament the flexibility to amend the Constitution while preventing any alteration that would dismantle its foundational values. Thus, the doctrine continues to preserve the Constitution’s core identity while upholding the delicate balance of powers within a democratic framework.
FAQS
Q1 Which doctrine was established under the Kesavananda Bharati case ?
The Doctrine of Basic Structure was established under the case.
Q2 How the doctrine of basic Structure is interpreted ?
The doctrine of Basic structure is interpreted through the judicial decisions.
Q3 Is the doctrine mentioned in the Constitution ?
No, the doctrine is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Q4 Why is this case a landmark judgment ?
This is a landmark judgment because the Doctrine of Basic Structure was introduced and limits the parliament’s constituent powers under the Article 368.
