Author: Samridhi Singh, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
To the Point
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is a landmark in Indian constitutional law. It evolved the Basic Structure Doctrine, which restricts Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The judgment reinterpreted the balance between legislative powers and the untouchability of some constitutional canons to preserve the long-term spirit of the Constitution.
Use of Legal Jargon
Article 368: Authorizes Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Judicial Review: The judiciary’s ability to decide whether legislative actions are constitutional.
Doctrine of Basic Structure: A doctrine prohibiting Parliament from changing the fundamental characteristics of the Constitution.
Constituent Power vs Legislative Power: Constituent power is the power to frame or amend a constitution; legislative power is the power to enact laws under it.
Supremacy of the Constitution: The doctrine that the Constitution is the supreme law, and to which all the laws and amendments have to adapt.
The Proof
Background: Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition under Article 26, challenging the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which affected his religious institution’s property. However, the case soon escalated beyond a property dispute and questioned the very limits of constitutional amendment powers.
The Issue: Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Part III which contains Fundamental Rights.
The Verdict: Rendered by a 13-judge bench (the biggest ever in Indian history), the judgment was a 7:6 majority verdict. The majority opined that though Parliament can make any change to the Constitution, it cannot modify or dismantle its “basic structure.”
Majority Opinion:
The power of Parliament under Article 368 is not boundless.
The “basic structure” of the Constitution is not susceptible to change.
Supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, federalism, secularism, democracy, and the rule of law form the basic structure.
Minority Opinion (headed by Justice A.N. Ray):
The amending power of Parliament under Article 368 is not restricted by the judiciary and is plenary in nature.
Abstract
It was born out of a dispute over property rights but transformed into a landmark judgment establishing constitutional supremacy and judicial review. The Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, held that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure. The case preserved Indian democracy from majoritarian excess and the integrity of the Constitution from capricious amendments, thereby reinforcing civil liberties and democratic government.
Case Laws
Golak Nath v. Punjab State (1967)
It held that Parliament was not permitted to amend Fundamental Rights..
This decision limited Parliament and resulted in the amendments overturning it, which in turn resulted in the Kesavananda case.
Precedent cases where the Court had held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Restated the Basic Structure Doctrine
Held limited amending power to be part of the basic structure itself.
Declared clauses attempting to render Parliament’s amendment power unrestricted as void.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Applied the Doctrine of the Basic Structure to invalidate Article 329A(4), which was enacted to legitimize the election of the Prime Minister, as unconstitutional.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Energized the rule that statutes enacted in the Ninth Schedule post-1973 can nonetheless be tested for judicial review if they injure the basic structure.
Conclusion
. It balanced the competing requirements of constitutional fluidity and stability by differentiating between modification and annihilation. While it affirmed Parliament’s enormous amending powers, it clarified that some underlying values—such as judicial review, basic rights, secularism, democracy, and federalism—are safe from amendments.
This decision stopped the Constitution from being reduced to a plaything in the hands of a fleeting political majority. It re-established the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and maintained the constitutional identity of India. The Basic Structure Doctrine still guards citizens’ rights, making it impossible for any law or amendment to encroach upon the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution.
FAQ
Q1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
A: It is a principle of judicial law developed in the case of Kesavananda Bharati that asserts that Parliament may amend the Constitution but cannot touch its basic features like secularism, democracy, and the rule of law.
Q2. Why this case is so important?
A: It clipped the unlimited amending power of Parliament and saved the sanctity of fundamental rights and democratic ideals in the Constitution.
Q3. What was the ratio of verdict in the case of Kesavananda?
A: A 7:6 majority verdict in a 13-judge bench, the largest in the Indian Supreme Court’s history.
Q4. Was the Land Reforms Act declared unconstitutional?
A: No. While the court widened the horizon of law, it held that the Kerala Land Reforms Act was constitutionally valid, subject to some changes.
Q5. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights now?
A: Parliament can modify Fundamental Rights as long as the modification does not annihilate or change the basic structure of the Constitution.
Q6. What will be the effect of this judgment on future constitutional amendments?
. A: Any post-April 24, 1973 (date of judgment) constitutional amendment that has been enacted can be
challenged and declared void if it infringes the basic structure
Q7. Has the Basic Structure Doctrine been challenged or reversed?
A: No. It has been repeatedly reaffirmed in later landmark judgments, such as Minerva Mills, Waman Rao, and I.R. Coelho.
Q8. Who was the Chief Justice at the time of the Kesavananda Bharati case?
A: Justice S.M. Sikri, who worked hard to formulate the majority view before his retirement on the same day the judgment was announced.