Author: Abdul Rehman, B.C.T College of Law, New Panvel
Abstract
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is the single most important verdict in the history of Indian constitutional law. It was a titanic legal battle that pitted the fundamental rights of citizens against the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. At its heart was a simple, yet profound, question: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including the parts that grant fundamental rights, or are there inherent limitations to this power? The Supreme Court’s answer, delivered in a wafer-thin majority, established the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” a judicial principle that continues to act as the bedrock of Indian democracy, ensuring that the Constitution’s core identity remains inviolable.
To the point
A spiritual head, Kesavananda Bharati of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala government’s attempts to acquire his mutt’s property under two state land reform laws. His lawyers argued that these laws violated his fundamental rights to property (Article 31), religion (Article 25), and equality (Article 14).
The case quickly escalated beyond a simple property dispute. The central question became the validity of the 29th Constitutional Amendment Act (1972), which had placed the very Kerala laws he was challenging into the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. Laws placed in the 9th Schedule were granted immunity from judicial review on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
This was the culmination of a fierce struggle between the Judiciary and the Parliament. The government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, argued that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute and unlimited. The petitioners argued that if this were true, Parliament could, in theory, amend the Constitution to abolish democracy itself.
The Supreme Court, in a historic 7-6 majority decision, ruled that:
Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
However, this power is not absolute. It cannot be used to alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” or framework of the Constitution.
This judicially invented “Basic Structure Doctrine” became the ultimate check on parliamentary power.
The Legal Jargon
Article 368: The provision in the Constitution that outlines the power and procedure for Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12-35), which guarantees basic rights to all citizens against state arbitrariness (e.g., Right to Equality, Freedom of Speech, Right to Life).
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate legislative and executive actions if they are found to be unconstitutional.
9th Schedule: A constitutional sanctuary created by the First Amendment (1951) where laws are placed to protect them from judicial scrutiny for violating fundamental rights. (Post-Kesavananda, even laws in the 9th Schedule can be reviewed if they violate the Basic Structure).
Basic Structure Doctrine: The principle that the Constitution has an underlying basic structure (e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, federalism, separation of powers) that cannot be amended by Parliament.
The Proof
The “proof” of the Kesavananda Bharati verdict’s power is its repeated application by the Supreme Court to protect democracy. It is not a law written in the text but a living doctrine enforced by the judiciary. Key instances include:
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court applied the doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny. The Court held that “free and fair elections” and the “rule of law” are part of the Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980): The Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that had tried to explicitly exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments. It cemented the doctrine, stating that a limited amending power itself is part of the Basic Structure.
Waman Rao Case (1981): The Court clarified that all amendments made after the date of the Kesavananda judgment (April 24, 1973) would be subject to judicial review based on the Basic Structure doctrine.
Recent Applications: The doctrine has been invoked in judgments upholding judicial independence, secularism, and federalism, proving its enduring relevance as a guardian of constitutional values.
Case Laws
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
It held that amendments to the Constitution are ‘law’ under Article 13 and thus cannot violate fundamental rights, establishing an initial broad view of Parliament’s amending power.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
It reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but acknowledged certain limitations, setting the stage for further judicial scrutiny.
3. I.C Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
This case reversed earlier rulings by asserting that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights under Part III, emphasizing the inviolability of these rights and creating a conflict that the Kesavananda judgment sought to resolve.
Conclusion
Kesavananda Bharati was more than a legal judgment; it was a profound philosophical statement. It declared that the Constitution is not a mere set of rules to be manipulated by a temporary majority in Parliament. Instead, it is a living document with an immortal soul—its Basic Structure.
The case represents a delicate balance. It acknowledged the need for the Constitution to evolve through amendments, but it also placed a sacred trust in the judiciary to protect its core identity from being annihilated. While Kesavananda Bharati himself did not win his specific property claim, his case secured something infinitely larger: the future of Indian democracy. His name is forever etched in history as the man who, by fighting for his mutt, ended up protecting the foundational pillars of the entire nation.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Question)
Q: So, did Kesavananda Bharati actually win his case?
A: Ironically, on the immediate personal level, he did not. The Supreme Court upheld the land reform laws and the constitutional amendment that protected them. However, his case established a principle that protected the rights of every single Indian citizen forever. He lost the battle but won the war for constitutional democracy.
Q: What exactly is included in the “Basic Structure”? Is there a fixed list?
A: No, there is no exhaustive list. This is intentional, allowing the doctrine to evolve. The Supreme Court has, over time, identified several features as part of it, including:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Separation of Powers between Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
Judicial Review
Secularism
Federalism
Sovereign, Democratic, and Republican nature of the Indian Polity
Freedom and Dignity of the Individual
Unity and Integrity of the Nation
Q: Isn’t this “undemocratic”? Why should unelected judges overrule elected representatives?
A: This is the central debate. Proponents argue that democracy isn’t just about majority rule; it’s about protecting minority rights and constitutional values from a “tyranny of the majority.” The judiciary acts as a neutral referee to ensure the rules of the game aren’t changed to benefit one player permanently. Critics argue it gives too much power to an unelected judiciary.
Q: Has Parliament ever tried to overrule this judgment?
A: Yes. The 42nd Amendment (1976 during the Emergency) explicitly stated that no constitutional amendment could be questioned “in any court on any ground” and that Parliament’s amending power had “no limitations.” However, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court struck down those very clauses, reaffirming the Basic Structure doctrine and proving its resilience.
Q: How is this relevant to me, an ordinary citizen today?
A: It is incredibly relevant. The Basic Structure Doctrine is the ultimate shield protecting your core rights. It is the reason why no government, however powerful, can legally amend the Constitution to, for example, abolish elections, remove the Supreme Court, declare a state religion, or take away your right to approach a court for justice. It ensures the India you live in remains a democracy in spirit, not just in name.
