Author : Cheshta Singh, Agra College Faculty Of Law.
Abstract
The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is regarded as one of the most significant and transformative judgments in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Delivered by the largest bench ever constituted in India, consisting of thirteen judges, the case examined the extent and limitations of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The judgment resolved the long-standing conflict between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy by propounding the Basic Structure Doctrine, which holds that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic or essential features. This article critically analyses the factual background, constitutional issues, judicial reasoning, precedents, and long-term impact of the judgment, highlighting its role in preserving democracy, rule of law, and constitutional governance in India.
To the Point
The case addressed whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited.
The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting the amending power.
Certain essential features of the Constitution cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendments.
The judgment strengthened judicial review and constitutional supremacy.
It continues to guide constitutional interpretation in India.
Use of Legal Jargon
The petitioner, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, was the head (Mathadhipati) of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution located in Kasaragod district of Kerala. The State of Kerala enacted a series of land reform legislations aimed at implementing agrarian reforms by imposing restrictions on land ownership, including land held by religious institutions. These legislations adversely affected the proprietary and management rights of the petitioner.
The petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, alleging that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended, violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), 25 and 26 (Freedom of Religion and Management of Religious Affairs).
During the pendency of the proceedings, several constitutional amendments—namely the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments—were enacted, placing certain laws under the Ninth Schedule and altering the scope of Articles 31 and 368. These amendments raised a significant constitutional question regarding whether Parliament possessed unrestricted constituent power to amend the Constitution, even to the extent of abrogating fundamental rights or altering the essential identity of the Constitution.
The Proof (Issues, Arguments, and Judicial Reasoning)
Issues Before the Court
The primary constitutional issues before the Supreme Court were:
Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
Whether constitutional amendments can abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights.
Whether there are inherent limitations on Parliament’s amending power.
Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were constitutionally valid.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that:
The Constitution is supreme, and Parliament is a creature of the Constitution.
Article 368 does not confer absolute or unlimited power.
Parliament cannot destroy the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights form an integral and essential part of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated.
Arguments of the Respondent (State of Kerala & Union of India)
The respondents argued that:
Parliament exercises constituent power, which is sovereign in nature.
There are no express limitations under Article 368.
Constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Judicial Reasoning and Decision
The Supreme Court, by a narrow 7:6 majority, delivered a historic judgment. The majority held that:
Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
However, such power is not unlimited or absolute.
There exists an implied limitation that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Court rejected the doctrine of absolute parliamentary supremacy and held that constitutional supremacy must prevail. It emphasized that the Constitution derives its authority from the people of India and embodies their fundamental aspirations.
Though the Court did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, it identified several essential features, including:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secular character of the Constitution
Federal structure
Separation of powers
Rule of law
Judicial review
Free and fair elections
The 24th Constitutional Amendment was upheld, affirming Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. However, the Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced as a constitutional limitation.
Case Laws (Evolution of the Doctrine)
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights, as constitutional amendments were not considered “law” under Article 13.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
The Court reaffirmed Parliament’s wide amending power but expressed concerns regarding the potential misuse of such power.
3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, marking a shift towards judicial restraint on Parliament.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Court overruled Golaknath and introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking a balance between flexibility and rigidity.
Conclusion
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala stands as a constitutional landmark that safeguarded the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that constitutional amendments remain within the bounds of constitutional morality and democratic values.
The decision harmonized the need for constitutional flexibility with the necessity of preserving core constitutional ideals. It empowered the judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution while preventing the misuse of parliamentary power. Even after five decades, the judgment continues to influence constitutional adjudication and remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
FAQS
Q1. What is the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case?
It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
Q2. Is the Basic Structure defined in the Constitution?
No, it is a judicially evolved doctrine.
Q3. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
Yes, but not in a manner that violates the basic structure.
Q4. Why was a 13-judge bench constituted?
Due to the constitutional importance and conflict among earlier judgments.
Q5. Does the doctrine still apply today?
Yes, it is consistently applied by the Supreme Court.
