Author: P. Poornesha, Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli
TO THE POINT
The 1973 judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala stands as one of the most consequential decisions in Indian constitutional history. Delivered by a 13-judge bench—the largest ever constituted by the Supreme Court of India—the case redefined the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution. The Court held that while Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine, fashioned through a razor-thin 7–6 majority, continues to shape constitutional jurisprudence by preserving the identity, core values, and essential features of India’s constitutional democracy. This article explores the legal reasoning, implications, and lasting influence of the judgment on modern governance and fundamental rights.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The Kesavananda Bharati decision hinges on the interpretation of Article 368, which grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Prior to this case, decisions like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) affirmed Parliament’s plenary power to amend even fundamental rights. However, Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) reversed this view, holding that Parliament could not amend Part III at all.
In this context, the Court in Kesavananda sought to reconcile parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy. The majority opinion recognized Parliament’s constituent power as distinct from its ordinary legislative power, affirming that a constitutional amendment is valid so long as it does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The doctrine encompasses features such as:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secular character of the State
Separation of powers
Judicial review
Federalism
Rule of law
Through this formulation, the Court shielded the Constitution from excessive majoritarian amendments, cementing judicial review as a constitutional sentinel. This shift significantly recalibrated India’s constitutional architecture by balancing the principles of flexibility and immutability.
THE PROOF
The legal reasoning in Kesavananda Bharati was shaped by extensive arguments presented by eminent jurists such as Nani Palkhivala, M.K. Nambiar, and the then Attorney General, Niren De. The Court evaluated the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which were enacted to counter earlier decisions restricting Parliament’s amending powers.
The petitioners argued that Parliament’s power cannot extend to rewriting the Constitution or altering its essential foundations, emphasizing that the Constitution is a social contract rooted in popular sovereignty. Sociopolitical contexts—including land reform legislation and the struggle between the executive and judiciary—played a major role in shaping the Court’s understanding of constitutional limitations.
The majority relied not only on doctrinal analysis but also on historical interpretation, the structure of the Constitution, the Constituent Assembly debates, and comparative constitutional law. The “basic structure” doctrine emerged as a judicial innovation designed to prevent authoritarianism, ensure continuity of constitutional values, and protect democratic governance from transient political majorities.
ABSTRACT
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) represents a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Arising from challenges to constitutional amendments that sought to curtail property rights and eliminate judicial scrutiny, the case forced the Supreme Court to confront the extent of Parliament’s amending power. In a historic 7–6 verdict, the Court held that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot destroy or damage its basic structure.
This landmark ruling overturned the restrictive approach of Golaknath and established a nuanced balance between constitutional flexibility and foundational stability. The decision has shaped a series of later judgments involving judicial review, federalism, secularism, and the independence of constitutional institutions. By articulating the basic structure doctrine, the Court safeguarded the Constitution from the possibility of authoritarian encroachment while ensuring democratic adaptability.
This article examines the legal reasoning behind the decision, its immediate and long-term impact, and its role in contemporary constitutional and political debates
CASE LAWS
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
The Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, treating amendments as exercises of constituent power under Article 368. This decision laid the groundwork for the tension between constitutional rigidity and legislative flexibility.
2. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Court reversed Shankari Prasad, holding that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights. This decision triggered a chain of constitutional amendments aimed at restoring parliamentary supremacy, ultimately setting the stage for Kesavananda.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The basic structure doctrine was reaffirmed when the Court invalidated the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review. The ruling emphasized that democracy and rule of law constitute part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that attempted to eliminate judicial review and expand Parliament’s amending power without limitation. The judgment clarified that limited amending power itself is part of the basic structure.
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The basic structure doctrine influenced the Court’s approach to federalism and secularism, helping limit the arbitrary exercise of Article 356 (President’s Rule). This case expanded the doctrine’s relevance to executive actions and Centre-State relations.
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
In recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, the Court invoked the principles underlying the basic structure doctrine—constitutional morality, dignity, and liberty—reaffirming the doctrine’s contemporary relevance.
CONCLUSION
The Kesavananda Bharati verdict transformed Indian constitutional discourse by establishing that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot compromise its core identity. The basic structure doctrine acts as a constitutional safeguard against authoritarianism, enabling the judiciary to preserve essential democratic values.
Although criticized by some as judicial overreach, the doctrine has arguably ensured the survival of constitutional democracy during periods of political turbulence. The judgment’s legacy is reflected in subsequent decisions concerning judicial independence, federalism, secularism, and the protection of fundamental rights.
Today, the basic structure doctrine remains central in debates concerning constitutional amendments, institutional reforms, and the balance of powers. Its enduring relevance underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to protect the Constitution’s foundational values while respecting democratic will. The doctrine remains not only a legal principle but also a philosophical commitment to constitutionalism—anchoring India’s legal system in stability, continuity, and democratic integrity.
FAQS
1. What was the primary legal issue in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala?
The key issue was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited or whether there are inherent restrictions preventing it from altering the Constitution’s basic structure.
2. What is the basic structure doctrine?
It is a judicial principle that prohibits Parliament from altering the fundamental framework or essential features of the Constitution while exercising its amending power.
3. How did the Kesavananda Bharati case change constitutional law in India?
The judgment held that amendments cannot destroy the Constitution’s core values, thereby limiting Parliament’s authority and strengthening constitutional supremacy and judicial review.
4. Why is the decision considered a milestone in Indian democracy?
The decision preserved the Constitution’s identity, protected fundamental rights, and prevented potential misuse of constitutional amendments during periods of political dominance.
5. Does the basic structure doctrine still apply today?
Yes. The doctrine is routinely invoked in constitutional cases involving federalism, judicial independence, fundamental rights, and institutional integrity. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
6. What amendments were challenged in the case?
The 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were challenged, all of which sought to expand Parliament’s powers and curtail judicial review, particularly regarding property rights and land reforms.
