Author: Ritu Raj singh
To the Point
Land reforms, including the redistribution of land from larger landowners to the poor, were first introduced in the Indian state of Kerala in the 1950s and 1960s. Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 was the first Kerala Land Reform Act where the Government of Kerala enacted a Land Reform Act in 1963, limiting the quantity of land one can possess. The Act called for the acquisition of surplus land from those who possess excess land and the redistribution of this land to the poor and landless.
Sri Kesavananda Bharati is the head, or pontiff, of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in the state of Kerala, India. In 1970, the Government of Kerala enacted legislation of the Control of Landholding Act. The Edneer Mutt, presided by Sri Kesavananda Bharati, was the first to challenge the constitutionality of the Act in the Kerala High Court. The High Court, in the end, ruled in favor of the state government.
In the meantime, the Parliament of India passed the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which aimed to restrict the powers of the courts and the extent of judicial review. Also passed was the Twenty-Fifth and Twenty-Ninth Amendments which were aimed at restricting fundamental rights of the people and empowering Parliament to add, change, or delete any provision of the Constitution.
Sri Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition wherein he challenged the validity of these amendments as being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. This resulted in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment in which the basic structure doctrine was upheld and curbs were imposed on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
This case became one of the most important in Indian constitutional history, and Sri Kesavananda Bharati is remembered as a key figure in the fight to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law in India
Use of legal jargon
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case was replete with intricate legal terminology, considering the question of constitutional powers at their very basic level. Understanding that terminology is crucial to understanding the magnitude of the judgment.
The central legal issue was the scope of Article 368, the constitutional grant of amending power to Parliament. Was this a true Constituent Power-the original power to frame a Constitution-or just an amending power-a delegated power to modify it? Ultimately, the Court held that Parliament had the power of amendment but not the absolute power of abrogation or destruction.
The most important legal expression to have gained widespread usage because of the judgment is the Basic Structure Doctrine. Although the expression is not to be found in the original text of the Constitution, it became a super-check on Parliament’s power. It held that the integral features or fundamental features of the Constitution, such as Judicial Review, Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Secularism, are beyond Parliament’s power to amend, even by way of a constitutional amendment.
Moreover, the plaintiff challenged three particular constitutional amendments, namely the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.
The 24th Amendment attempted to clarify legally that an amendment to the Constitution was not a “law” for the purposes of Article 13(2). This was crucial since Article 13 subjects ordinary laws to the test of Fundamental Rights (Part III), thus making judicial review feasible. The Court sustained the 24th Amendment but imposed the Basic Structure limit upon it.
The 29th Amendment placed certain state laws – the Kerala Land Reforms Acts – in the Ninth Schedule so as to immunize them against judicial challenge on the ground that they infringed the Fundamental Rights. The Court’s ultimate ruling was to hold that even laws put in the Ninth Schedule were open to scrutiny on the ground that they contravened the Basic Structure.
The complex 7:6 majority judgement relied on the ‘doctrine of implied limitation’, an implicit understanding that the Constitution already impose certain limitations on the amending power, though not explicitly spelt out. The final ratio decidendi-for a case-is that though the amendment of Fundamental Rights by Parliament is permissible, any law violating the Basic Structure is not.
The Proof
Proof in Kesavananda Bharati refers to the logical, constitutional, and doctrinal reasoning through which the Supreme Court showed that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is not absolute; it does not extend to the destruction of some fundamental features, later termed the Basic Structure.
The Court, to prove why unlimited amending power would be inconsistent with constitutionalism, examined the text of Article 368, the scheme of the Constitution, historical debates in the Constituent Assembly, and comparative constitutional jurisprudence. The judges reasoned that though Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, it does not explicitly enable changing its essential identity. The silence was interpreted not as permission but as an implied limitation based on structure, purpose, and constitutional philosophy.
A critical proof relied upon by the majority was the distinction between “amendment” and “repeal or abrogation.” The Court contended that to amend presumes continuity, while abrogation connotes destruction of the existing order. Thus, Parliament could alter provisions but could not destroy the basic features, such as supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, rule of law, judicial review, democratic form of government, or fundamental rights.
The Court further referred to the intent of the framers as stating that the latter consciously avoided granting Parliament absolute sovereignty. Unlike the British Parliament, India’s Parliament is constitutionally limited, showing that the Constitution itself—not Parliament—is supreme. The structure of checks and balances served as further proof that the framers intended to prevent tyranny of the majority.
The judgment followed earlier cases—Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965), and Golaknath (1967)—to trace, in effect, the evolutionary development of the amendment power. In reconciling these conflicting precedents, the Court proved the requirement of a middle path: the wide amending power of Parliament is not the power to destroy the basic structure.
Furthermore, the Court drew upon comparative constitutional law, relying especially on judgments from Germany and the United States, to illustrate that in democracies, constitutional amendments are always subject to inherent limitations.
Thus, textual interpretation, structural analysis, historical intent, precedent, and comparative jurisprudence all combined to provide the “proof” in Kesavananda Bharati that the Constitution has a basic identity that is beyond the reach of Parliament. This doctrinal proof gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, forever shaping India’s constitutional future.
Abstract
The Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala judgment (1973) is the most seminal constitutional decision in Indian judicial history, laying down the famous Basic Structure Doctrine. This case involved a challenge by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, against state land reform legislation that aimed to limit the property rights of the Mutt. While the immediate dispute related to land reforms, over time the case turned into a constitutional challenge on what was considered the extent of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368. The question, which immediately fell for consideration before the largest ever bench of thirteen judges, was whether Parliament had absolute authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
By a narrow 7:6 majority, the Court handed down an epoch-changing decision: while Parliament had the competence to amend any part of the Constitution, it could not tamper with or destroy its “basic structure.” The judgment reasserted the supremacy of the Constitution and imposed substantive restrictions on the amending power of Parliament. The word “amendment,” said the Court, implies change, but not destruction. Among the fundamental features of the Constitution falling within the basic structure were the supremacy of the Constitution; rule of law; judicial review; separation of powers; federalism; secularism; democracy; and such essential features of Fundamental Rights that would be beyond the touch even of a constitutional amendment.
This judgment harmonized the conflict between Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath by setting a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. It preserved Parliament’s flexibility to enact social and economic reforms while preventing it from converting India into an authoritarian or discriminatory regime. By articulating the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court ensured that democratic foundations would remain secure against potential majoritarian excesses. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a constitutional landmark that has been shaping India’s democratic destiny for decades. It established the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution, preserved Fundamental Rights from legislative overreach, and vindicated the system of checks and balances. It is a living doctrine invoked repeatedly to test the validity of constitutional amendments that undermine institutional integrity and alter the character of India’s constitutional order. It distilled the essential principle that, even as constitutions evolve, their basic character should remain impervious. This abstract sums up the continuing importance of the decision as the foundational basis of India’s modern constitutional jurisprudence.
Case Laws
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Issue: Whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Held: In the affirmative. The Supreme Court held thereby: under Art 13, “Law” does not include constitutional amendments and, therefore, Parliament was competent to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights.
Relevance to Kesavananda: This case, therefore, supported the unlimited amending power theory, which was questioned in later cases and finally reconsidered in Kesavananda.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Issue: Validity of amendments affecting Fundamental Rights.
Held: The Court once again upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
However, two judges—Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar—expressed doubts about unlimited amending power. Mudholkar J. had referred to the concept of a “basic structure” for the first time.
Relevance:
This case thus sowed the seeds of what was to become the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Issue: Whether Parliament can abridge Fundamental Rights.
Held: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. Constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13, hence subject to its restrictions.
Relevance:
The judgment thus restricted the power of Parliament and generated a constitutional crisis.
While Kesavananda Bharati, indeed, overruled Golaknath, judicial control was preserved by a new principle-the Basic Structure Doctrine.
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (Review petitions 1967–1971)
A great constitutional controversy ensued, resulting in:
24th Amendment (restoring Parliament’s amending power)
25th Amendment: restricting the right to property
These rulings were thus central because the validity of these amendments directly arose for review in Kesavananda.
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Outcome: Any part of the Constitution can be amended by Parliament. But cannot destroy its basic structure. Golaknath overruled; Shankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh partly upheld This case synthesized all earlier rulings, creating a new constitutional doctrine.
Conclusion
The conclusion of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is one of the most defining moments in Indian constitutional history. Given by the largest-ever 13-judge Bench, the judgment held by a narrow 7:6 majority that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it cannot alter, damage or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. The principle, known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, constitutes the heart of the Court’s concluding view.
The Court held that the Constitution and not Parliament was paramount, and that there was no limitless constituent power under Article 368. Parliament was free to amend any part of the Constitution to meet the requirements of changing conditions in social, economic, and political life, but it must do so without altering the basic structure or identity of the Constitution. The basic features that were beyond amendment, even by constitutional amendment, included supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, democracy, and fundamental rights.
The judgment also did a balancing act between two competing ideas: constitutional flexibility, necessary for the evolution of society, and constitutional permanence, essential to stability and protection of liberties. The Court acted as a guardian of constitutionalism in recognizing inherent limits on amending power and preventing the rise of majoritarian or authoritarian rule through misuse of constitutional amendments.
In the end, the Court protected part of the 24th and 25th Amendments while invalidating Section 4 of the 25th Amendment as contrary to basic structure doctrine. What emerged from this was the principle that judicial review is a basic safeguard to unconstitutional legislation.
Ultimately, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment ensured that the Constitution would remain a living, evolving yet structurally secure document. Its conclusion reinforced the judiciary’s role as the protector of the Constitution and established the enduring doctrine that continues to guide Indian constitutional law.
FAQs
What is the Kesavananda Bharati Case?
It is a judgment pronounced by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1973-the largest bench ever constituted in Indian history. The case tested the amplitude of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
2. Why was the case filed?
Swami Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Acts limiting his mutt’s property. During the litigation, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments affecting property rights. The challenge grew into a larger constitutional question: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution without limits?
3. What was the central issue?
Does Art 368 confer upon the Parliament untrammelled power to amend the Constitution including Fundamental Rights or is there an implied limit?
4. What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Court held that although Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot destroy or damage its Basic Structure. This principle came to be known as the Basic Structure Doctrine.
5. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
It’s a judicial doctrine that says there are basic features-like the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, secularism, democracy, separation of powers, and fundamental rights-that cannot be abrogated even through an amendment to the Constitution.
6. Why is the case historically important?
It kept India from becoming a parliamentary dictatorship; it prevented any ruling majority from rewriting the Constitution’s core and protected citizens’ rights and democratic institutions.
7. How did it affect future amendments?
Every constitutional amendment since 1973 is tested against the Basic Structure. If it violates the core identity of the Constitution, the Court can strike it down.
8. What is the legacy of the case?
It reinforced constitutional supremacy, judicial review, and India’s democratic framework. The case has retained its position as the most powerful constitutional verdict in Indian jurisprudence.
