Author – Sara Paresh Shah, University of Mumbai Thane sub-Campus
TO THE POINT
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ranks among the most pivotal judgments in India’s constitutional history. A 13-judge bench; the largest ever; examined whether Parliament could amend every part of the Constitution. The ruling affirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Indian Constitution while prohibiting any destruction of its BASIC STRUCTURE. This gave birth to the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which curbs parliamentary supremacy and guarantees the preservation of democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial review.
ABSTRACT
Struggle of power between the judiciary and the legislature which reached its boiling point in mid-1970s. The Supreme Court delivered what is arguably the most monumental decision in the history on 24th April, 1973. The case, Kesavanand Bharati v Union of India is a unique case in history of international constitutional law, for various reasons.
Firstly the anxious political circumstances in which the judgement was delivered. Then the unprecedented number of separate opinions delivered by the court as well as the sheer length of judgement itself. And lastly the shift in balance of democratic power it caused.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Basic Structure Doctrine – One of the most important jargon in the above mentioned case, Article 368.
Constituent Power – The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Amendment & Alteration – the question arises whether amendment means unlimited alteration or limited change.
Judicial Review – Reinforced as a part of basic structure. Preamble- as a part of constitution
Articles 14, 19 & 21(Fundamental Rights) – AKA – golden triangle, Doctrine of Severability – states that law is unconstitutional and only the part which is affecting or offending is struck down whereas the rest of the law remains valid
Judicial Reasoning via RATIO DECIDENDI – ratio decidendi is the reason for deciding. It is a legal rule that forms the basis of the court’s decisions.
THE PROOF
The verdict was passed by a slim majority of 7:6 on April 24, 1973, where seven judges upheld the principle that constitutional amendments violating the basic structure would be void. The Court asserted that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after this date could be subjected to judicial review if they infringed fundamental rights or the Constitution’s essential features, thereby limiting the Parliament’s amending authority.
Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench Strength: 13 Judges
Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973
FACTS
Kesavananda Bharati, the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt;a Hindu religious institution in Kerala’s Kasaragod district; owned land tied to the mutt that faced acquisition under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1969 and related laws. In February 1970, he filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging these reforms as violations of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(f) (property), 25 (religious freedom), 26 (religious institutions), and 31 (compulsory acquisition). The petition also contested the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which expanded Parliament’s amending powers post-Golaknath, arguing they undermined judicial review of fundamental rights. An unprecedented 13-judge bench; the largest in Supreme Court history; heard arguments from October 31, 1972, to March 23, 1973, spanning 68 days with over 147 hours of hearings; notable counsel included N.A. Palkhivala for petitioners and H.M. Seervai for Kerala. On April 24, 1973, Chief Justice S.M. Sikri delivered a 703-page judgment by a razor-thin 7:6 majority, upholding the 24th Amendment but striking parts of the 25th while overruling Golaknath’s ban on amending rights. This verdict birthed the basic structure doctrine, affirming Parliament’s broad Article 368 powers but prohibiting amendments destroying core features like constitutional supremacy, democracy, federalism, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review.
ISSUE
Does the Parliament have unlimited authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
Can Fundamental rights be amended or removed?
Can Parliament destroy the basic structure of the Constitution?
JUDGEMENT
The court held that parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights but keeping in mind that it does not destroy the basic structure of the constitution. This led to the introduction of the famous doctrine that is the Doctrine of Basic Structure.
Evolution of the case,
Shankari Prasad Case, 1951
The Supreme Court held that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 that includes only ordinary laws and not Constitutional Amendment Acts. Thus, Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights.
Golak Nath Case, 1967
In the Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court took a sharp U-turn from its previous position and declared that the word ‘law’ as used in Article 13 clearly covers Constitutional Amendment Acts as well. As a result, Parliament stood barred from taking away or even slightly curtailing any Fundamental Right by passing a Constitutional Amendment Act. The Court went further to emphasize that Fundamental Rights occupy a ‘transcendental and immutable’ position in the constitutional framework, placing them beyond Parliament’s reach to abridge or eliminate in any manner. It firmly laid down that a constitutional amendment act qualifies fully as a law within the meaning and interpretation of Article 13, and therefore any such act would automatically become void to the extent it violated any of the Fundamental Rights.
24th Constitutional Amendment Act(1971)
Parliament took direct action against the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Golak Nath case by passing the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act back in 1971, which brought significant changes to both Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution. Through this amendment, it was clearly laid out that Parliament possesses the full authority under Article 368 to curtail, abridge, or completely take away any of the Fundamental Rights
enshrined in the Constitution by means of a Constitutional Amendment Act, and importantly, any such amendment would not qualify or be treated as “law” within the specific meaning and scope provided under Article 13. Nevertheless, when the Kesavananda Bharati case came before the Supreme Court in 1973, the Court decisively overruled and departed from its previous stance established in the Golak Nath judgment.
Kesavananda Bharati Case
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act and stated that the Parliament can take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights. However, it laid down a new Doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, according to which, the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Thus, the overall position after the pronouncement of this judgment is that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge a Fundamental Right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
42nd Constitutional Amendment
In response to the Supreme Court’s introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine, Parliament passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976. This amendment altered Article 368 to assert that Parliament’s constituent power faces no limitations whatsoever. Consequently, no constitutional amendment could face challenge in any court, regardless of grounds, including violations of Fundamental Rights.
Minerva Mills Case(1980)
The Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the 42nd Amendment and ruled that judicial review forms part of the basic structure, meaning Parliament lacks unlimited authority to amend the Constitution.
Waman Rao Case(1981)
The Court upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine and extended its application to every constitutional amendment challenged in cases after the Kesavananda Bharati ruling.
CASE LAWS
The above mentioned case, that is the Kesavavanda Bharti Case itself is a landmark case.
Other key cases of related cases are
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court upheld Indira Gandhi’s election but struck down Article 329A(4) of 39th Amendment for violating basic structure (free & fair elections). First application of Kesavananda Bharati doctrine
post-1973
Golakhnath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Golaknath family challenged Punjab land laws and 17th Amendment for violating property rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Supreme Court (6:5) ruled Parliament cannot amend Part III fundamental rights, as “law” in Article 13 includes amendments.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Supreme Court struck down Sections 4 & 55 of 42nd Amendment for giving Parliament unlimited power and primacy to DPSPs over FRs, violating basic structure. Added judicial review and FR-DPSP balance to basic features
CONCLUSION
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case stands as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, decisively establishing the basic structure doctrine through a narrow 7:6 verdict by a 13-judge bench on April 24, 1973. This doctrine limits Parliament’s amending power under Article 368, protecting essential features like supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, judicial review, and the golden triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21 from destruction or abridgment. By reconciling the Golaknath and Shankari Prasad precedents, upholding the 24th Amendment while striking offending parts of the 25th, the judgment balanced legislative flexibility with judicial safeguards against arbitrary power. Its enduring legacy, affirmed in cases like Minerva Mills and Waman Rao, ensures the Constitution’s identity endures, fostering democratic stability amid evolving socio-political needs.
FAQs
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot alter or destroy its essential features, such as supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, and judicial review.
Why was the case filed?
Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Matha, challenged Kerala land reforms under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31, arguing they violated his rights to manage religious property and fundamental rights.
How did prior cases influence it?
Shankari Prasad (1951) allowed amendments to fundamental rights; Golaknath (1967) prohibited them; the 24th Amendment (1971) responded by clarifying amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
What are key related cases?
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1981).
