KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. THE STATE OF KERALA: DOCTRINE OF BASIC STRUCTURE UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION



Author: Krisha Shah, Law Graduate from Jitendra Chauhan College of Law


To the Point


In a democratic nation like ours, the Constitution serves as a fundamental framework that unites all citizens and guides their lives according to the vision of our founding leaders. As society evolved, constitutional amendments became essential to address emerging needs. However, to safeguard the essential constitutional principles, the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225] laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine limits Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 by prohibiting any change that would damage the Constitution’s essential features.

Use of Legal Jargon

1. Doctrine of Basic Structure
The authority of Parliament under Article 368 is inherently restricted; it cannot be exercised to dismantle the Constitution’s fundamental features. This doctrine preserves constitutional identity.

2. Ratio Decidendi (“The reason for the decision”)
It is the legal principle or rule on which a court’s decision is based. It forms the binding part of a judgment—something that lower courts have to follow.
In this case, the ratio decidendi was that Parliament’s amending power is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that dismantles the Constitution’s core principles.



3. Stare Decisis (“To stand by things decided”)
The doctrine that mandates adherence to precedents.
It means courts should follow precedents (previous rulings), especially from higher courts, to ensure consistency and stability in law.
The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati set a precedent that was later followed in multiple cases, including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India.

4. Ultra Vires (“beyond powers”)
Any constitutional amendment that infringes upon the basic structure is ultra vires and liable to be struck down.

5. Judicial Review
Affirmed that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny under Articles 13 and 32.

6. Constituent Power
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is distinct from ordinary legislative power and is limited by the doctrine of basic structure.

7. Amendability of Fundamental Rights
The Constitution permits changes to Fundamental Rights, but only if those changes do not harm or dismantle the basic structure.

The Proof

The Basic Structure Doctrine came into existence due to the growing disagreement between the Parliament and the judiciary after India gained independence. As the government enacted land reform laws, courts invalidated them for violating constitutional provisions. In response, Parliament passed the First and Fourth Amendments and introduced the Ninth Schedule to shield such laws from judicial scrutiny. This gave rise to a critical question: Is Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 absolute, or subject to limitations?
The debate began with the case of Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India (1952), where the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, and that Article 13(2) did not apply to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.

A similar stance was adopted in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), wherein the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Parliament possesses the authority to amend any part of the Constitution.

But things changed with the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, where a larger bench of 11 judges of Supreme Court with a 6:5 majority stated that Parliament could not take away Fundamental Rights through an amendment. They said Article 368 only tells us how to amend the Constitution, not what can be changed. This development presented a substantial obstacle to the Indira Gandhi administration. In response, the government introduced the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which clearly affirmed Parliament’s authority to amend any provision of the Constitution.

The matter was ultimately settled in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461], also referred to as the Fundamental Rights Case. This judgment became a crucial safeguard for preserving India’s constitutional identity; where the Court upheld Parliament’s amending power but barred it from altering the basic structure, thereby protecting citizens’ fundamental rights from arbitrary changes.

I. Facts of Kesavananda Bharati Case
The case began when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Matha (a Hindu religious institution) in Kerala’s Kasaragod district, challenged the Kerala government’s land reform laws. These legislations impacted the control and ownership rights over temple lands and other religious assets.
The Swami filed a case against the state government, claiming that these reforms took away his fundamental rights, especially the right to manage religious property.

Key facts include:

1. Land and Property Dispute: Swami Kesavananda was responsible for managing land connected to his religious institution. The land reform laws restricted his rights over these properties.

2. Legal Basis: He approached the Supreme Court under Article 26, which safeguards the rights of religious groups to handle their own affairs. He also raised concerns under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 19(1)(f) (right to own property), and Article 31 (protection from forced property acquisition).

3. Length of the Case: The case was argued over a long period—68 days—from 31 October 1972 to 23 March 1973, and the final judgment was nearly 700 pages long.

4. Well-Known Lawyers: Prominent advocates like Nani Palkhivala represented the petitioner and played a key role in arguing against the government.

This property dispute turned into a bigger constitutional matter, forcing the Supreme Court to consider how much power Parliament has to change the Constitution.

II. Issues Before the Court
The Court looked at several major questions:

1. Can Parliament change Fundamental Rights?
Does Article 368 give Parliament the right to amend the Constitution in a way that affects people’s basic rights?

2. Are there limits to Parliament’s power?
Is there any part of the Constitution—called the basic structure—that Parliament cannot change, no matter what?

3. Were the recent amendments valid?
The Court also reviewed whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were legal, since they aimed to give Parliament more power after earlier Court decisions.

These issues required the Court to balance the power of elected lawmakers with the need to protect the Constitution’s key principles.

III. Arguments Presented by the Parties

A. Arguments by the Petitioner (Swami Kesavananda Bharati’s Side)

1. Limited Power to Amend: Parliament can change the Constitution, but not in a way that removes its most important features—such as democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights.

2. Fundamental Rights Must Be Protected: These rights are a core part of the Constitution. Changing or removing them would damage the very purpose of the Constitution.

3. Previous Case Opinions: In earlier cases like Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, some judges had already expressed concern about giving Parliament unlimited power.

4. Purpose of the Constitution: The petitioner argued that the Constitution was meant to protect citizens from government overreach. Giving full power to change it could lead to misuse and harm basic freedoms.

B. Arguments by the Respondent (State of Kerala’s Side)

1. Parliament Has Full Power: The government argued that under Article 368, Parliament has the right to change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

2. Parliament Represents the People: Since Parliament is elected by the public, it should have the power to decide what changes are needed in the law or Constitution.

3. No Mention of Limits: The Constitution doesn’t directly say there are any restrictions on amendment powers. So, courts should not create limits that aren’t written in the document.

4. Need for Flexibility: The respondent said that a Constitution must evolve. If we stop Parliament from making changes, it could prevent necessary reforms in the future.

IV. Judicial Reasoning

The majority view, articulated by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and concurred by Justices Hegde, Grover, Shelat, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna, outlined the following core legal reasoning:

1. Parliament Can Amend the Constitution – But Not Its Core
Parliament has the power to change the Constitution under Article 368. However, no amendment can compromise the basic structure.

2. Basic Structure Doctrine Introduced
The Court said that some features are so fundamental, they cannot be removed or altered—even by constitutional amendment.


3. Core Principles of the Basic Structure:

i. Supremacy of the Constitution
The Constitution is the highest law and binds all state organs.

ii. Sovereignty and Unity of India
The Republic of India shall uphold its autonomy, self-governance, and the undivided nature of its territory.

iii. Republican and Democratic Form of Government
Government must be elected by the people through free and fair elections.

iv. Parliamentary System
The executive must be accountable to the legislature.

v. Rule of Law
All actions of the State must be based on law; arbitrariness is prohibited.

vi. Separation of Powers
The separation of powers requires that the legislature, executive, and judiciary function distinctly and independently.

vii. Judicial Review
The judiciary must retain the authority to examine the validity of laws and constitutional amendments.

viii. Fundamental Rights
Basic rights like equality, liberty, and protection from state overreach must be preserved.

ix. Freedom and Dignity of the Individual
The State must ensure individual liberty, privacy, and dignity.


x. Secularism
The State must remain neutral toward all religions and ensure religious freedom.

xi. Federalism
Power must be shared between the Union and States, maintaining decentralization.

xii. Welfare State
The Constitution aims to promote social and economic justice for all citizens.

4. Term “Amendment” Has Limits
The Court clarified that “amendment” does not mean total rewrite or destruction of essential principles.

5. Need for Balance
The ruling tried to balance flexibility and stability—allowing changes for progress, but not at the cost of core values.

V. Judgement Outcome and Its Impact
The judgment left a profound and enduring impact on the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in India.

1. Partial Upholding of Amendments: The 24th Amendment was upheld, confirming Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. However, parts of the 25th Amendment were struck down for violating the basic structure by excessively curbing fundamental rights.

2. Strengthening Judicial Review: The ruling empowered the judiciary to examine and invalidate any constitutional amendment that violates the basic structure. This became a powerful tool to ensure the Constitution’s foundational values are preserved.

3. Political Reaction: The judgment sparked political controversy. The Indira Gandhi government was displeased, and promotions of dissenting judges became a subject of debate. Despite the pushback, the Basic Structure Doctrine became a key safeguard in Indian constitutional law.

Abstract

The emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine was a result of the tension between Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution and the judiciary’s duty to uphold its foundational principles. The debate reached its turning point in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where a 13-judge bench upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment but ruled that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure. Though the Court introduced this landmark doctrine, it did not provide a specific definition of what the “basic structure” includes, leaving its interpretation to be developed in future cases.

Case Laws

1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case is known for highlighting the abuse of political power. Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister, was accused of using her official position to unfairly win an election. The situation led to the declaration of a national emergency in India. The Court held that Article 329A, which had been inserted to protect her election from judicial review, violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution as it undermined democratic principles and rule of law.

2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Supreme Court affirmed that while Parliament holds the authority to amend the Constitution, such authority is subject to inherent limitations. It cannot use its limited authority to give itself absolute power. The Court also ruled that constitutional amendments cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

3. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
In this case, the Court upheld the validity of earlier amendments like the First Amendment (which added Articles 31A and 31B) and the 25th Amendment (which added Article 31C). The Court held that these constitutional amendments were consistent with the basic structure and did not infringe upon its core principles.

4. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case, the Court ruled that reservations in public employment for OBCs under Article 16(4) are constitutional. The judgment also reinforced that equality and rule of law are part of the basic structure, and reservations must respect these principles.

5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The matter involved improper invocation of Article 356, enabling the central government to dismiss state administrations. The ruling clarified that this power is exercisable within constitutional limits and is open to judicial review. The decision emphasized federalism and secularism as essential parts of the basic structure.

Conclusion


The Basic Structure Doctrine came from the Kesavananda Bharati case during a clash between Parliament and the Judiciary. It means Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot change its core values. Though not clearly defined, the doctrine protects key features like democracy and fundamental rights. The judiciary allows adding new elements to this doctrine as society evolves.

FAQS

1. Can the Preamble to the Constitution be amended without violating the Basic Structure?
Yes, the Preamble can be amended (as done in the 42nd Amendment), but not in a way that alters the core ideals like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which form part of the Basic Structure.

2. Does the Doctrine of Basic Structure apply to constitutional conventions and unwritten principles?
While not explicitly mentioned, courts have occasionally acknowledged that democratic conventions and unwritten principles (like independence of judiciary) may be part of the Basic Structure.

3. How does the Basic Structure Doctrine affect Emergency provisions?
Post-S.R. Bommai (1994), the use of Emergency powers (especially Article 356) is subject to judicial review to ensure it doesn’t violate democratic federalism — a part of the Basic Structure.

4. Can the Doctrine of Basic Structure restrict international treaties or foreign agreements?
Yes, if a treaty or agreement ratified under Article 253 leads to a domestic law violating the Basic Structure, courts may strike it down.

5. Are ordinary laws (not amendments) also tested against the Basic Structure?
No. Only constitutional amendments are tested against the Basic Structure. Ordinary laws are reviewed for consistency with Part III (Fundamental Rights), not the Basic Structure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *