Author: Arya Pandey, University Law college
Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, Jharkhand
Abstract
A constitution is not merely a collection of articles printed on paper; it is the conscience of a nation, breathing through institutions and people. The case of kesavananda Bharti v. state of kerala (1973) represents the moment when the Indian constitution asserted its identity against unchecked Power. This judgment did not merely decide a legal dispute- it reshaped the relationship between Parliament, the Judiciary, and the people of India. By propounding the Doctrine of Basic Structure, the Supreme Court ensured that while the Constitution may evolve with time, its soul remains untouched. This article explores the historical background, legal conflict, judicial reasoning, and enduring impact of this landmark
decision in a manner that blends legal reasoning with constitutional imagination.
To the point
At its core, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala answered a dangerous constitutional question: Can Parliament rewrite the Constitution without limits? The Supreme Court’s response was firm yet balanced. Parliament may amend the Constitution, even Fundamental Rights, but it cannot destroy its basic structure. This single declaration transformed Indian constitutional law forever, ensuring that democracy, rule of law, and liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of political power.
Legal jargon
Doctrine of Basic Structure – Fundamental constitutional principles immune from amendment
Article 368 – Constitutional provision governing amendments
Judicial Review – Authority of courts to assess constitutionality
Constitutional Supremacy – The Constitution as the highest law
Parliamentary Power – Legislative authority of Parliament
Ratio Decidendi – Binding legal principle of a judgment
Separation of Powers – Division among Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
Stare Decisis – Doctrine of precedents
The proof
The conflict before the storm
In the early decades after independence, India faced the enormous task of social transformation. Land reforms, abolition of zamindari, and redistribution of wealth were seen as necessary steps toward equality. However, these reforms frequently collided with Fundamental Rights, especially the right to property.
To bypass judicial scrutiny, Parliament amended clears way through constitutional
amendments. This led to a legal tug-of-war between Parliament and the Supreme Court.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the same position continued.
But in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court dramatically reversed its stance, holding that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all.
This judicial uncertainty planted the seeds for Kesavananda Bharati. The Constitution stood at a crossroads-either become endlessly flexible or fiercely protected.
Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of kerala (1973)4 SCC 225
Facts of the case
Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a centuries-old religious institution in Kerala. The Kerala Land Reforms Act imposed ceilings on land ownership, including land held by religious institutions. This directly affected the Mutt’s property and management
rights.
Kesavananda Bharati challenged:
The Kerala Land Reforms Act
The 24th Constitutional Amendment (affirming Parliament’s power to amend)
The 25th Amendment (restricting property rights)
The 29th Amendment (placing land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule)
He argued that these amendments violated his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 25, and 26.
Issues for determination
Does Article 368 grant unlimited amending power to Parliament?
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
Are there implied limitations on constitutional amendments?
The historic judgement
A 13-judge Constitutional Bench, the largest in Indian history, heard the case. After extensive arguments spanning months, the Court delivered a 7:6 majority decision.
The Court held:
Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution.
However, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
This doctrine became the constitutional firewall protecting India’s democratic framework. Doctrine of Basic structure explained
The Court deliberately avoided defining a rigid list, allowing flexibility. However, certain elements were clearly recognized as basic:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Judicial Review
Federalism
Secularism
Separation of Powers
Fundamental Rights
Free and fair elections
Any amendment that damages these pillars would be unconstitutional, regardless of parliamentary majority.
Ratio decidendi
The power to amend under Article 368 is not absolute. It is subject to the limitation that the basic structure of the Constitution must not be destroyed or abrogated.
Post-Kesavananda Jurisprudence
The doctrine did not remain theoretical. It was actively applied:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Judicial review upheld as basic structure
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Limited amending power reaffirmed
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Federalism protected
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Ninth Schedule laws subject to basic structure test
These cases prove that Kesavananda Bharati is not history- it is living law.
Conclusion
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala stands as a silent guardian of Indian democracy. It does not resist change; it resists destruction. By recognizing that a Constitution must evolve yet remain anchored, the Supreme Court ensured that power would never overpower principle. This case is not remembered merely for what it decided, but for what it prevented-the slow erosion of constitutional morality. Even decades later, its echo continues to shape every serious constitutional deb
ate in India.
FAQS
Q1. Why is Kesavananda Bharati considered the most important constitutional case?
Because it introduced the Doctrine of Basic Structure, limiting Parliament’s power.
Q2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights today?
Yes, but not in a manner that violates the basic structure.
Q3. Is the Doctrine of Basic Structure written in the Constitution?
No, it is a judicial interpretation.
Q4. Is this doctrine still followed by courts?
Yes, it is firmly established in Indian constitutional law.
Q5. Which Article governs constitutional amendments?
Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
