Author :Amulya kagadal, Sri Siddappa Kamabli Law Collage, Dharwad
To the Point
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is the most famous and important case in Indian legal history, it is the judicial pronouncement that established the boundaries of Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. The 13-judge constitution bench decided by a margin of 7:6 that while Parliament enjoys broad powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot touch the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This doctrine has acted as a permanent curb on arbitrary constitutional amendments and has since evolved into a judicial bulwark protecting democracy, rule of law, and individual freedom.
Abstract
The historic decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is hailed for bestowing India with the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial innovation that guaranteed the durability and holiness of the Constitution against majoritarian abuse. The petitioner, Kesavananda Bharati, had challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act and certain constitutional amendments that limited his fundamental right to property. However, the case evolved into a comprehensive examination of whether Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court’s verdict was path-breaking. It ruled that while Parliament has wide-ranging amending powers under Article 368, those powers are not absolute. It cannot emasculate or destroy the fundamental values that constitute the building blocks of the Constitution, including sovereignty, democracy, federalism, secularism, and judicial review. The verdict harmonized two conflicting visions: one demanding Parliamentary sovereignty and the other proclaiming Constitutional supremacy. The scales were leveled by the doctrine that shields the Constitution against radical or regressive changes.
The ruling set the precedent for constitutional interpretation in the future and has since been cited in several landmark cases. It continues to be the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, safeguarding its citizens and democratic institutions against authoritarian intrusions in the name of constitutional amendments.
Use of Legal Jargon
Basic Structure Doctrine – The doctrine that some aspects of the Constitution are so basic that Parliament cannot repeal or alter them.
Judicial Review – The power of the courts to judge whether a piece of legislation is constitutional.
Constitutional Supremacy – The Constitution is superior to all state organizations, including Parliament.
Article 368 – The article of the Indian Constitution which gives the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Doctrine of Severability: This is the idea that unconstitutional parts of a law can be detached from the remainder of the law.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – A judicial doctrine permitting courts to apply decisions only to cases arising thereafter to prevent retrospective effect.
Fundamental Rights – Rights included in Part III of the Constitution, regarded as vital to human dignity and democracy.
Ultra Vires – Actions or amendments performed beyond legal capability or authority.
Constituent Power – The power to write or change a constitution, which is separate from typical legislative power.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) – These are rules which are unchallengeable in court, and are part in Part IV of the Constitution.
Ninth Schedule – Schedule enacted by the First Amendment to protect laws from judicial review.
The Proof
Case Title: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Bench Strength: There are thirteen judges on the bench, making it the largest bench in the history of the Indian judiciary.
Date of Judgment: April 24, 1973
Chief Justice: S.M. Sikri (retired the following day)
Verdict: By a 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited. It is not possible for it to impact the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
Impact: Upheld portions of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments but read them down wherever they were found to infringe on the Constitution’s core framework.
Case Laws
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
In this instance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment and held that Parliament can amend any portion of the Constitution, including Part III (Fundamental Rights), in exercise of its power under Article 368. According to this interpretation, the legislature had unrestricted amending authority.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Reiterated the position from Shankari Prasad, which held that the alteration of fundamental rights was legal. Yet, some judges were worried about the threat of this amending power being abused.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
A milestone of constitutional interpretation, in which the Supreme Court held that by a mere 6:5 majority, Parliament cannot amend Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution. The Court held that Article 368 specifies the procedure and not the power to amend the Constitution
24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971)
In particular, Article 368 was changed to give Parliament the power to change the Constitution however it sees fit. It required that laws relevant to constitutional amendments be ratified by the president.
25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971)
Weakened the ambit of the right to property and accorded priority to Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights.
29th Constitutional Amendment Act (1972)
Included Kerala’s land reform legislation in the Ninth Schedule, thus protecting it from judicial scrutiny.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
In this case, the Basic Structure Doctrine was used to strike down the 39th Amendment, which tried to put the election of the Prime Minister outside the purview of judicial scrutiny. Emphasized the view that even constitutional amendments fall within judicial review.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Held Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional since they harmed the basic structure by weakening the power of judicial review and augmenting Parliamentary dominance. Declared that “One fundamental aspect of the Constitution is its limited amending power.”
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
Draw a distinction between constitutional amendments prior and subsequent to Kesavananda Bharati, holding that amendments post-April 24, 1973, could be reviewed by the judiciary if they are contrary to the basic structure.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Held that any law, even if placed under the Ninth Schedule, would be subject to judicial review if it violated the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case represents the most consequential ruling in the history of Indian constitutional law. It limited Parliament’s abuses and established the required restraints on its ability to change the Constitution. With a razor-thin 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court forged the Basic Structure Doctrine, thereby ensuring that no elected government could dilute or destroy the essential principles of the Constitution for political gain.
This judgment did not merely interpret legal text—it laid the philosophical foundation of India’s constitutional democracy. It harmonized Parliament’s will with constitutional morality, striking a delicate balance between change and continuity, reform and restraint.
The ruling has withstood the test of time and continues to act as a constitutional firewall against legislative overreach. It gives the judiciary the authority to serve as the watchdog over the qui vive, constantly maintaining the principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity that are expressed in the Preamble.
To quote Chief Justice S.M. Sikri:
“Constitution functions not merely as a blueprint for administration, but as a foundational guide shaping the nation’s legal and political ethos. It is a testament to the aspirations of the people, and its soul must never be violated.”
FAQS
1. What was the central issue in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala?
A: The primary question was whether Parliament had unlimited power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The Court held that the essential framework of the Constitution lies beyond the scope of parliamentary amendment.
2. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A: The Basic Structure Doctrine is the judicial principle that certain features of the Constitution—such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial independence—are so fundamental that they cannot be amended or destroyed even by Parliament.
3. What was the outcome of the case?
A: By a majority vote of 7:6, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution is limited. The fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be harmed or destroyed.
4. Why was a 13-judge bench formed?
A: The case involved revisiting earlier judgments (like Golaknath) and interpreting the amending power of Parliament. Owing to its immense constitutional importance, a historic 13-judge bench—the largest ever in India’s judicial annals—was constituted to hear the case
5. Who was Kesavananda Bharati?
A: Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastery in Kerala, who challenged the constitutional amendments that affected his property rights under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
6. Is the Basic Structure Doctrine still followed?
A: Yes. It has been consistently reaffirmed in multiple subsequent Supreme Court judgments and is now a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
7. Can Fundamental Rights be amended?
A: It can be , but only insofar as the modification doesn’t conflict with the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
8. Is the Kesavananda judgment enforceable today?
A: Absolutely. It serves as the foundation for judging whether constitutional revisions are legitimate and is still enforceable in India.
