INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India is the main law of the country. It lays down the framework for the functioning of different authorities including the Government, the Parliament, the Judiciary, and lays down the rights and duties of citizens. It covers various important parts such as the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Union and State Government structure, and provisions related to emergency, elections, finance, and much more. The Indian Constitution is a living document—which means it can be amended as the needs of society change—but at the same time, it protects some core values like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and fundamental rights that form the heart of our nation.
Over time, the power to amend the Constitution became a matter of serious debate. The Parliament has the power to make changes to the Constitution under Article 368, but to what extent? Can it change the Fundamental Rights? Can it change anything and everything? These questions became important especially after the Parliament passed several constitutional amendments that tried to reduce the power of courts and affect the rights of citizens. This conflict between Parliament’s power to amend and Supreme Court’s power to protect the Constitution led to one of the most historic cases in Indian legal history—Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most important and landmark decisions in the constitutional history of India. Decided in 1973 by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court—the largest ever in India—it settled a major question: Can the Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights? The judgment of Kesavananda Bharti introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” which became a permanent part of Indian constitutional law. This doctrine says that while the Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot change or destroy its basic structure or essential features.
This case is not just about legal principles but about the core values of democracy, justice, liberty, and equality. It established that there are certain features of the Constitution that are so fundamental that they cannot be altered even by the highest law-making body in the country. It played a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the Judiciary and the Parliament and protecting citizens’ rights.
Before reaching the Kesavananda Bharati case, many important constitutional events took place. These include cases like Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965), and Golak Nath (1967), as well as constitutional amendments like the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. All these developments are the part when talking about the background of Kesavananda Bharati case. In this article, we will understand these events step by step in chronological order and explain their significance to Indian constitutional law.
This article aims to explain in simple language the entire journey of the Kesavananda Bharati case—its background, facts, issues involved, the judgment, and most importantly, the Basic Structure Doctrine that came out of it. It also looks at the impact of this decision, how it changed the way amendments are judged, how it affected the relationship between Parliament and Judiciary, and whether the doctrine has remained relevant till today.
BACKGROUND LEADING TO KESAVANDA: KEY CASES AND AMENDMENTS
After independence, the Indian government aimed to bring economic and social equality, especially through land reforms. However, many such reform laws conflicted with citizens’ Fundamental Rights, particularly the Right to Property.
This led to a series of legal battles and constitutional amendments. Understanding these is essential to know the roots from where this case became this big.
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): In this case, the 1st Constitutional Amendment was challenged by the petitioners. The amendment added Article 31A and 31B to save land reform laws from being removed by the courts. The Supreme Court said that Parliament can change any part of the Constitution, even the Fundamental Rights. It also stated that the term “law” in Article 13 does not cover constitutional amendments.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): This case challenged the 17th Constitutional Amendment, which again protected land reform laws. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Shankari Prasad case, stating that Parliament has the power to amend or alter the Constitution. However, two judges—Justice Hidyatullah and Justice Mudholkar—expressed doubt and suggested that there might be inherent limitations to amending powers.
3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): This was a landmark reversal. The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions. The Court held that Parliament does not have the power to amend or take away Fundamental Rights. The Court said that Article 13 applied to amendments as well. According to this judgment, Parliament could not take away or reduce Fundamental Rights, even through a constitutional amendment, interpreting Article 13 to include constitutional amendments.
This decision created a major conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary. The Parliament wanted to bring reforms for public welfare, while the Judiciary was protecting Fundamental Rights.
To nullify the Golaknath judgment and restore its power to amend the Constitution, the Parliament passed three major constitutional amendments:
- 24th Amendment (1971): This amendment clarified that Parliament has the power to change any part of the Constitution, even the Fundamental Rights. It also added few new provisions to Article 368, which further strengthens Parliament’s authority to amend.
- 25th Amendment (1971): This change limited the power of the judiciary in property-related matters. It replaced the word “compensation” with “amount”, reducing the Court’s role in reviewing laws about property rights.
- 29th Amendment (1972): Added two Kerala land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, making them immune from judicial review.
These moves laid the groundwork for the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which challenged the constitutional validity of such sweeping amendment powers.
KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS STATE OF KERALA: CASE BACKGROUND AND FACTS
The case was filed by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, who was the head of a Hindu religious institution called Edneer Mutt in Kerala. In 1970, the Kerala government introduced land reform laws that aimed to take over land owned by religious institutions. Swami Kesavananda felt that these laws violated his Fundamental Rights, especially the Right to Property, which was then a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.
He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging these laws. Initially, the case was only about his property rights, but it quickly turned into a much larger constitutional question. The main focus shifted to whether Parliament had the power to amend Fundamental Rights at all, and whether there were any limits to its power under Article 368.
This case was heard by a 13-judge bench over 68 days—the longest hearing in the history of the Supreme Court. It became a ruthless battle between the Parliament and the Supreme Court(judiciary).
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
The Supreme Court had to decide on three important questions in this case:
- Does Parliament have full and unlimited authority to make changes to the Constitution under Article 368?
- Can Parliament change or remove Fundamental Rights by using its amending power?
- Is there any part of the Indian Constitution that cannot be amended or touched by Parliament?
These questions went to the heart of constitutional democracy and tested the balance of power in the Indian system.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES
The government, led by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, argued that the Parliament represented the will of the people and had complete power to amend the Constitution. They said Article 368 gave Parliament full authority.
On the other hand, the petitioners argued that there must be certain limits on the power of Parliament. They said that the Constitution was a social contract and that some features like democracy, secularism, and rule of law were so important that they could not be changed or removed.
The petitioners said that the Indian Constitution isn’t just any legal paper—it’s a living document that protects democracy and reflects the hopes and dreams of the people. They argued that the power to change the Constitution shouldn’t be used in a random or unfair way that harms its core purpose.
JUDGMENT
The judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973. It was a 7-6 majority decision. The Court held that:
- Yes, Parliament has the authority to change any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- But Parliament cannot arbitrarily destroy or change the “basic structure” of the constitution or the essential features which are listed in different places of the Constitution.
This was a middle path. It gave Parliament the power to make changes but also protected the core values of the Constitution.
REASONING AND JUDICIAL OPINIONS
Each of the 13 judges gave separate judgments. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri said that the Constitution rests on certain pillars that cannot be removed. These pillars include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Rule of law
- Independence of the judiciary
- Separation of powers
- Federalism
- Secularism
- Democratic form of government
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Judicial review
The judges said that these features are not listed in one place but can be found by looking at the entire Constitution. If Parliament tries to remove these features, the amendment can be struck down.
AFTERMATH AND POLITICAL REACTIONS
The Kesavananda Bharati case put a limit on how much power Parliament had, to change the Constitution, which makes the government angry. As a result, Indira Gandhi’s government superseded three senior judges—Justices Shelat, Hegde, and Grover—who were part of the majority. Instead, Justice A.N. Ray, who was at that time in the minority, was appointed the Chief Justice of India. This event is known as the Supersession of Judges and was seen as a major attack on judicial independence.
Later, during the Emergency (1975–1977), the government passed the 42nd Amendment (1976): This amendment is also known as “Mini Constitution” because it changes majority topics in constitution, Added Article 368(4) and (5): Declared that amendments cannot be questioned in any court, and Parliament’s amending power is unlimited, Further protected Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and also Expanded powers of the central government.
The main goal of this amendment act was to nullify the Kesavananda Bharati judgment and eliminate Basic Structure limitations.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):
- Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- It Struck down Article 368(4) & (5) as they are violating the Basic Structure of the constitution.
- The Court held that the Basic Structure doctrine includes the idea that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited. In simple terms, the limit on Parliament’s amending power is itself a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Also ruled that there should be a perfect balance between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
NINTH SCHEDULE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Ninth Schedule was added to the Constitution in 1951 to protect land reform laws from being cancelled by the courts. After the Kesavananda Bharati case, more laws were added to this schedule to keep them safe from court review. The idea was that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule couldn’t be challenged in court.
But in the I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case, the Supreme Court ruled that even laws in the Ninth Schedule can be checked by the courts if they harm or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This decision helped protect the power of judicial review.
CRITICISM OF THE JUDGMENT
The Kesavananda Bharati case has received both support and criticism. One criticism is that the judgment was too complex—13 judges gave 11 separate opinions, and there was no single majority opinion. Also, the judgment did not clearly define what exactly is included in the “basic structure.”
Critics say that this gives too much power to judges, who are not elected representatives. Others argue that this doctrine limits the democratic power of the Parliament.
However, supporters believe the doctrine is necessary to prevent any misuse of power and to protect the core values of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
We can conclude that the Kesavananda Bharati case is a pillar of Indian constitutional law which plays a pivotal role in upholding democracy. It made sure that while the Constitution can evolve with time, its soul remains untouched.
The doctrine of basic structure ensures that India remains a democracy, respects human rights, and stays true to the values laid down by the makers of the Constitution. This case has not only shaped Indian law but has also inspired constitutional thinking around the world.
Author: Aftab Khan, a student of Government New Law College, Indore (Affiliation DAVV)
