Author : Eshika Sahay, a student of Netaji Subhas University
TO THE POINT
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala( 1973) Citation( 1973) 4 SCC 225
Background: The Kerala government’s attempts to seize the mutt’s property under land reform laws were contested by Kesavananda Bharati, a seer of a Hindu mutt in Kerala. He challenged the government’s constitutional revisions in a writ petition filed under Article 32.
Main Question: Does Article 368 provide Parliament unrestricted authority to change the Constitution, including basic rights?
Judgment
The largest bench in Indian history, consisting of 13 judges, delivered a narrow 7:6 majority. According to the Supreme Court, Parliament can change any aspect of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but not the “Basic Structure.”
Doctrine Established
Basic Structure Doctrine Parliament’s power to amend is n’t absolute. Core principles like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and abecedarian rights form part of the Basic Structure, which can not be destroyed.
Significance
It saved India’s indigenous identity and popular foundation. Came a bulwark against authoritarian indigenous emendations.
Impact
Continues to be the bedrock of Indian indigenous law and has been upheld in numerous corner cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain( 1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India( 1980).
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Introductory Structure Doctrine
Simplified Meaning The Supreme Court made it clear that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it can not change its core identity. This includes essential principles like republic, the rule of law, and judicial independence. These abecedarian values form the” introductory structure” and must remain untouched, indeed during indigenous emendations.
Constituent Power
Simplified Meaning This is the special power given to Parliament to change or amend the Constitution under Article 368. still, this authority is n’t unlimited. Parliament can make necessary changes, but it must n’t damage the essential frame or spirit of the Constitution.
Doctrine of Severability
Simplified Meaning still, the invalid part can be removed without discarding the entire law, If a law includes both indigenous and unconstitutional rudiments. This principle helps in conserving the legal portions of legislation while barring only the defective sections.
Ultra Vires
Simplified Meaning This Latin expression means” beyond the powers.” If Parliament makes a law or indigenous change that violates the introductory structure, it’s considered beyond its authority and is declared void. Simply put, indeed lawgivers have boundaries they can not cross.
Preamble as Part of the Constitution
Simplified Meaning The Preamble is n’t just an preface; it carries legal significance. It outlines the core values and objects of the Constitution — like justice, liberty, equivalency, and fraternity — and helps guide the interpretation of other indigenous vittles.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
Simplified Meaning This principle means that when the court introduces a new rule or legal interpretation, it’ll apply only to unborn situations. once opinions or conduct grounded on the old interpretation wo n’t be affected. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the court used this idea to say that the introductory structure rule would apply moving forward.
THE PROOF
The case began when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the indigenous validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This law hovered the mutt’s property rights, which Swami Bharati believed were defended under the right to religion and property guaranteed by the Constitution. still, during the course of proceedings, the focus of the case expanded far beyond the land reforms issue. Swami Bharati and his legal platoon also questioned the 24th, 25th, and 29th indigenous emendations, arguing that these emendations allowed Parliament to dock or indeed exclude abecedarian rights. This raised a important indigenous question Does Parliament have absolute power to amend the Constitution, including the introductory rights of citizens?
Core Legal Issue
The central question was Can Parliament amend any provision of the Constitution, including those related to abecedarian rights, without any limits?
Arguments from Both Sides
For the Petitioner( Kesavananda Bharati) The petitioner contended that while Parliament can make emendations, it can not destroy or alter the “ introductory structure ” of the Constitution. Abecedarian rights, judicial review, rule of law, and republic were argued to be part of this unassailable core.
For the Respondent( Government of India) The government argued that under Composition 368, Parliament has the complete authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the abecedarian rights. According to them, there were no inferred or express limitations on this power.
The Verdict( Majority 7:6)
In a major 13- judge bench decision, the Supreme Court delivered a split but corner verdict Yes, Parliament does have wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368. still, these powers are n’t unlimited. Parliament can not amend or destroy the “ introductory structure ” of the Constitution.
The Court laid down the now- notorious Basic Structure Doctrine, which means there are essential features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot touch, indeed through emendations. Some of these features include : Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law Separation of powers , Judicial review, Federalism , Denomination, Abecedarian rights.
While the 24th, 25th, and 29th emendations were largely upheld, the Court made it clear that any unborn emendations would be subject to judicial scrutiny if they tried to alter the Constitution’s introductory structure.
Doctrine Established: Basic Structure Doctrine
This case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which acts as a indigenous safeguard. It means that while Parliament can make changes, it can not rewrite the Constitution’s core identity or values. This doctrine ensures that popular and legal foundations — like equivalency, liberty, and justice — cannot be canceled .
Why This Case Matters?
It saved the soul of the Indian Constitution, icing that its core principles can not be destroyed, indeed by the tagged representatives. The judgment strengthened judicial oversight, giving the courts a pivotal part in checking unconstitutional emendations. It marked a turning point in India’s indigenous history by asserting that power must always be exercised within limits, indeed by Parliament.
This case remains a foundation of Indian indigenous law. It reaffirms that the Constitution is supreme not Parliament, not the bar and its substance must remain untouched.
ABSTRACT
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, decided in 1973, stands as one of the most important judgments in India’s constitutional history. At its heart, the case was about the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader from Kerala, approached the Supreme Court to challenge state laws that affected the property of his religious institution. However, as the case unfolded, it evolved into a much deeper constitutional debate.
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament had unlimited authority to change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The Court, in a split verdict (7 judges to 6), ruled that while Parliament does have the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot change its “basic structure.” This means there are some fundamental principles—like democracy, the rule of law, judicial independence, and secularism—that are so essential to the Constitution that they must remain untouched.
This landmark decision gave birth to what is now called the Basic Structure Doctrine. It ensures that the Constitution can be amended to meet the changing needs of society, but its core values cannot be destroyed. The ruling continues to guide constitutional interpretation and protects the integrity of India’s democratic framework, ensuring that no government can misuse its power to alter the soul of the Constitution.
CASE LAWS
- Golak Nath v. State of Punjab( 1967)
This was one of the foremost cases to stir the debate on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights are beyond the reach of indigenous emendations. It declared that Parliament could n’t dock or adulterate these rights under Composition 368. This decision made way for the eventual Kesavananda Bharati ruling, as it raised the essential question — are there limits to amending power?
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain( 1975)
This case arose during the political fermentation of the exigency period. The Court struck down a clause from the 39th indigenous Correction, which tried to place the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court reasoned that free and fair choices are part of the Constitution’s introductory frame, and indeed Parliament can not stamp this. This case verified that political responsibility is a indigenous foundation.
- Minerva manufactories Ltd. v. Union of India( 1980)
In this case, the Court was formerly again called upon to cover the Constitution’s core. It examined corridor of the 42nd Amendment, which gave Parliament unlimited powers to amend the Constitution and vanquished Abecedarian Rights to Directive Principles. The Court struck these vittles down, affirming that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must attend in harmony. It corroborated the idea that limited amending power is itself a introductory point.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India( 1994)
Then, the Court dived the issue of President’s Rule under Composition 356, frequently used for political earnings. The judgment stressed that denomination is an essential point of the Indian Constitution. It also emphasized the need for civil balance and judicial scrutiny when dismissing state governments. This case extended the reach of the introductory structure doctrine into the realms of federalism and temporal governance.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu( 2007)
The Ninth Schedule was firstly created to cover certain laws from being challenged in court. Over time, this list was misused to shield unconstitutional conduct. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that any law — indeed if placed under the Ninth Schedule is subject to introductory structure review if fitted after the Kesavananda judgment in 1973. It verified that judicial review is an unshakeable part of indigenous republic.
CONCLUSION
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala judgment, delivered in 1973, remains one of the most significant milestones in India’s constitutional journey. It wasn’t just a legal verdict—it was a defining moment that forever changed how the Indian Constitution is interpreted and protected.
At the heart of this case was a fundamental question: Can Parliament change any part of the Constitution, even if it means altering its very foundation? The Supreme Court, in a deeply divided 7:6 majority, answered with clarity—no. It ruled that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot tamper with its “basic structure.”
This idea of a “basic structure” includes values that are central to India’s identity as a democratic republic—such as the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, secularism, and fundamental rights. These elements are so crucial that no amendment, however popular or well-intentioned, can erase or destroy them.
The verdict was not just a limitation on Parliament’s authority—it was a shield for democracy. It ensured that no government, no matter how powerful, could rewrite the Constitution in a way that would undermine the freedoms and principles it guarantees to every citizen. In doing so, the Court positioned itself as the guardian of constitutional values, standing firm to protect the soul of the nation.
In essence, the case taught us that while change is necessary in a growing democracy, change should never come at the cost of our core principles. The ruling created a balance—allowing the Constitution to evolve while making sure its foundational values remain untouched. This is the true legacy of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment: a commitment to preserve the spirit of the Constitution for future generations, no matter the political winds of the day.
FAQ
- When did this case take place?
The Supreme Court heard the case in 1973. After 68 days of continuous arguments, it delivered its final verdict on April 24, 1973.
- Why is this case considered such a big deal?
This judgment introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine”, which says that Parliament can change the Constitution but cannot alter its basic framework. This principle has since acted as a shield, protecting Indian democracy and constitutional values from arbitrary amendments.
- What amendments were under the microscope in this case?
The case challenged the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments of the Constitution:
The 24th Amendment gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution.
The 25th Amendment limited the right to property.
The 29th Amendment placed certain laws in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review.
- What exactly is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The basic structure doctrine is a principle developed by the Supreme Court. It states that while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot touch the core elements that define its very soul. These include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of Law
- Separation of powers
- Fundamental rights
- Democracy
- Secularism
- Federalism
- Judicial independence
Any change that tampers with these values is unconstitutional.
- How did the judges vote in the case?
It was a close 7–6 majority decision in favor of limiting Parliament’s powers. While 7 judges ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure, 6 judges disagreed and believed
Parliament’s powers were absolute. The narrow majority made the verdict even more significant.
- What impact did the judgment have on Indian governance?
The ruling ensured that no government or majority in Parliament can rewrite the Constitution’s core to suit its political agenda. It protected the Constitution from misuse and strengthened judicial oversight over constitutional amendments. In simple terms, it kept our democracy safe from potential abuse.
- Did this judgment influence other cases later on?
Absolutely. The basic structure doctrine laid down in this case has guided many later rulings, such as:
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975),
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980),
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), and
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).
These cases reinforced that no authority can undo the basic character of the Constitution, no matter how powerful.
Is the Basic Structure Doctrine written in the Constitution? No, interestingly, you won’t find the phrase “basic structure” anywhere in the Constitution. It’s a judicial creation, a concept brought to life by the Supreme Court through interpretation. Even though it’s not written down, it’s now a binding part of constitutional law.
