Author: Harshitha R, a student at Dayanand Sagar University,Bengaluru.

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) Supreme Court ruling is a milestone in the evolution of Indian constitutional law. This pathbreaking ruling made the Basic Structure Doctrine a limb of Indian law, a judge-made doctrine that imposes restrictions on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. In the opinion of the Court, some of the basic features of the Constitution—democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial independence—cannot be changed or destroyed by amendments to the Constitution. This principle aims to safeguard the Constitution from transient political expediencies and prevents possible misuse of parliamentary power by a majority. 

Major Legal Principles:

Basic Structure Doctrine: A perception that some fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be repealed or modified.

Article 368: The article which lays down the procedure for amendment of the Constitution.

Judicial Review: The authority of courts to review the constitutional validity of legislative and executive actions.

Supremacy of the Constitution: The doctrine that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Doctrine of Severability: Legal principle under which the unconstitutional portions of a statute can be severed without impairing the validity of the other provisions.

Ultra Vires: Performing an act that is outside one’s legal jurisdiction.

Transformative Constitutionalism: Method of interpreting the Constitution with a purpose to bringing about social transformation.

Separation of Powers: Division of power between the government, the executive, and the legislature, as well as between the union government and the states. 

Federalism: Distribution of power between the union and the states. 

The case was argued before a record-breaking 13-judge bench in the Supreme Court, the biggest bench ever.In my decision in a close 7:6 divide, the Court ruled that Parliament possesses extremely broad powers to amend the Constitution but not broad enough to change or erase its constitutional canons. This was made on the basis of the moment when Parliament was seeking to prevent unreviewability and bring wholesale amendments into constitutional rights through successive amendments. The judgment not only saved the spirit of the Constitution but also created a permanent judicial check against unwarranted legislative or executive intrusion. This essay discusses the genesis, influence, and relevance of the Basic Structure Doctrine in the present times.

It examines the political, constitutional, and legal consequences of the judgment and its relevance in protecting Indian democracy. The essay also explores the impact of the case on future legal decisions and how the case redefined the meaning of constitutional amendments by imposing substantive limitations on parliamentary sovereignty. Through this, the ruling has continued to play the role of a constitutional watchdog, particularly during times of political unrest. Important Case Laws Cited

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the chief of a religious institution belonging to Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, under Article 32 on the ground of infringement of his rights under Articles 25 and 26. Even though the case started in the context of the question of property right, it became a general constitutional issue of Whether Parliament can amend any portion of the Constitution or any aspect thereof including Fundamental Rights?

The Court finally held that the Parliament can bring amendments in the Constitution but cannot change or end its basic structure. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) AIR 1643

Here, the Supreme Court decided that Parliament was not allowed to alter Fundamental Rights, reading constitutional changes as “law” in Article 13(2). This line of thinking was reversed to an extent by Kesavananda Bharati, clarifying that amendments of this nature are allowed—as long as they do not annihilate the basic structure.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) AIR 2299

This case involved a provision of the 39th Amendment, seeking to put beyond the reach of courts the election of the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court held this provision to be null and void on the basis that it infringed the doctrine of free and fair election, which is an integral part of the basic structure.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) AIR 1789

The Court reiterated the doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati whereby amending power in itself is a constituent of the basic structure of the Constitution. It invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment (Sections 4 and 55), and it held that they perturb the harmony between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1

Here, the Supreme Court laid down that laws enacted under the Ninth Schedule after Kesavananda decision are also testable in the basic structure test particularly where such laws are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)

Also referred to as the NJAC case, the Court invalidated the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act on the grounds that they were unconstitutional for encroaching upon the judiciary’s independence, which is included in the basic structure.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is widely regarded as a landmark in Indian constitutional law.

With its establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court established a strong constitutional framework that bars any branch of the government—more specifically, the legislature—from destroying the essential content of the Constitution. The doctrine has remained a bulwark against wholesale changes in times of political turmoil and is committed to keeping the government of India within constitutional limits. Even while the doctrine has been faulted for supposedly dominating the judiciary, it is still an institutional pillar of Indian constitutional democracy, guarding values like the rule of law, secularism, and liberty. Its lasting value is the potential to defend the Constitution from within, to make it alive and powerful to generations to come.

FAQ

Q1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

It is a principle developed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala which states that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the core features of the Constitution, even through a constitutional amendment.

Q2. Can the Basic Structure be amended or removed?

No. Any attempt to remove or nullify the basic structure would be subject to judicial review and struck down for violating constitutional supremacy.

Q3. Is the Basic Structure Doctrine mentioned in the Constitution?

No. It is a judicial innovation introduced by the Supreme Court through constitutional interpretation in 1973.

Q4. Why is the Kesavananda case so important?

It established that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot change its fundamental character. This decision saved Indian democracy from potential autocracy.

Q5. How has this doctrine been used in recent times?

It has been applied in major rulings like the NJAC judgment and I.R. Coelho case to strike down amendments and laws that infringe on core constitutional values like judicial independence and fundamental rights.

Sources

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-case-background/
• https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india
• https://lawtimesjournal.in/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-case-analysis/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/kesavananda-bharati-case/
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/43951924
• https://main.sci.gov.in/ (for full judgments and official SC records)