AUTHOR- KAJAL PRAJAPATI
UNIVERSITY- SHRI RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court of India held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament cannot alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
Use of Legal Jargon
Doctrine of Basic Structure
Constituent power vs. legislative power
Judicial review
Supremacy of the Constitution
Article 368 – Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
Article 13(2) – Restriction on the State from making laws inconsistent with fundamental rights
Fundamental Rights
Amendability vs. Abrogation
The Proof
The case arose when His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, under Article 26 (right to manage religious property). During pendency, the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were enacted, drastically increasing Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
A 13-judge constitutional bench was constituted—the largest ever in India’s history—to decide if there were any inherent limits to Parliament’s power under Article 368.
The bench ruled 7:6 that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
Abstract
This article critically analyzes Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), a constitutional milestone that redefined the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution. It marked a doctrinal shift by upholding constitutional supremacy and curbing parliamentary absolutism. This case carved out the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that certain foundational features of the Constitution—such as democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review—are beyond the reach of constitutional amendments. The article also examines the constitutional amendments under challenge, the court’s reasoning, relevant precedents, and the judgment’s enduring impact.
Case Laws
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Held that Fundamental Rights can be amended under Article 368. No distinction was made between legislative and constituent power.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad. The court stated that Parliament’s power to amend includes Fundamental Rights.
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Overruled earlier cases. Held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. It was seen as judicial activism and led to constitutional crises.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Overruled Golaknath in part. Held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but not the Basic Structure.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Applied Basic Structure Doctrine. Struck down amendment that placed PM’s election beyond judicial review.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Strengthened Basic Structure Doctrine. Struck down clauses that gave unlimited power to Parliament under Article 368.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case remains the bedrock of Indian constitutional law. It prevented India from descending into constitutional dictatorship by imposing judicially enforceable limitations on Parliament’s amending powers. While it gave Parliament leeway to amend laws—including Fundamental Rights—it also preserved constitutional integrity by ensuring that key features such as secularism, democracy, federalism, and judicial review cannot be abrogated. This judgment continues to guide constitutional interpretation and protect the spirit of the Constitution.
FAQ
Q1: What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A1: It is a judicial principle that limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “basic features” like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and separation of powers.
Q2: Was the judgment unanimous?
A2: No. The verdict was a narrow 7–6 majority. The majority ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot touch its basic structure.
Q3: Who delivered the majority opinion?
A3: The majority view was expressed in separate judgments. However, Justice H.R. Khanna played a pivotal role in crafting the decisive vote.
Q4: Why is this case considered a landmark?
A4: It preserved the Constitution from being rewritten by political majorities and safeguarded citizens’ rights through judicial review.
Q5: What was the political context?
A5: The decision came during a time of political turbulence. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
