Author: Srishti Sinha, a student of University of Mumbai, Thane sub-campus
To the Point
The Kesavananda Bharati case has marked a pivotal moment in the history of Indian Constitution that set new standards for the laws in India. The Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced by the Supreme Court of India through the judgment of this case, which said that the Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368 shall be limited. The Court, in this case, held that the Parliament cannot demolish the basic structure of the Constitution such as the Preamble to the Constitution. However, the Court also said that the Parliament still possesses the power to change or alter any part of the fundamental framework if needed. This court decision played a vital role in rescuing and bringing back the core legal ideas that were already woven into our Constitution such as factors like government must follow that law, the power should be split up among different branches so that no one has too much control and that the judges should be independent and not swayed by outward pressure. With a narrow 7:6 majority, the verdict skillfully balanced the Constitution’s adaptability with its essential stability, allowing the law to progress while shielding its core substance from any totalitarian control.
Abstract
The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark in Indian constitutional law. It reconciles Parliament’s need to amend the Constitution for progressive governance with the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional identity. As the Doctrine of Basic Structure emerged from this suit, it persists in championing the Constitution of India from oppressive governance. While earlier judgments either granted unchecked power to Parliament (Shankari Prasad) or absolute sanctity to Fundamental Rights (Golak Nath), Kesavananda struck a constitutional balance, preserving democratic integrity and constitutional supremacy. The ruling redefined the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, asserting that the Constitution is supreme—not Parliament. Through this judgment, the judiciary placed limits on constitutional amendments, establishing a doctrine that serves as a bulwark against political excesses and majoritarian tyranny. It ensures that core principles—like democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law—remain intact, regardless of changing political ideologies or governments. The doctrine is not static; it continues to evolve through subsequent decisions and remains a guiding light in Indian constitutional discourse.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Kesavananda Bharati case is crucial for grasping foundational jurisprudence that administer the fundamental law in India. At the heart of the dispute was the extent of a constitutional amendment, which refers to a formal change made to the Constitution following the process detailed in Article 368. Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution but there is no express mention of any limitation of these powers of the Parliament. The Supreme Court upheld and introduced the concept of Basic Structure Doctrine and further stated that although the Parliament has the power to modify any section of the Constitution, it cannot abolish, change or destroy the key aspects. Judicial review is the tool or method by which the legislative and executive operations are scrutinized by the judiciary and this feature of judicial review is one of the safeguarded features. The Fundamental Rights, as given in Part III of the Constitution is the gist of the Constitution of India and thus, this case also protects its solemnity by barring any kind of arbitrary interference. The legal concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution contends that all authorities, along with Parliament, should be under constitutional strictures. Moreover, the decision highlighted the theory of separation of powers, ascertaining that the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary should administer their functions within their purviews separately. Furthermore, principles of federalism, secularism, democracy, and the rule of law were the factors acknowledged for forming the basic structure and being exempt from constitutional amendments.
The Proof
The background of the case traces back to the land reform legislations in Kerala, specifically the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt (a religious institution in Kasaragod, Kerala), filed a writ petition under Article 26 of the Constitution, challenging the state’s action of acquiring his institution’s property. Initially, his petition was a plea to safeguard his right to manage religious property, but the case grew in scope as it questioned Parliament’s very power to amend the Constitution. This legal dispute came after a series of conflicting judgments by the Supreme Court. Earlier, in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Court held that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights. But this stance was overturned in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), where it was held that Fundamental Rights were inviolable and could not be amended. This created legislative tension, as the government found it difficult to implement social welfare and land reform programs due to the judiciary’s opposition. To settle the constitutional chaos, a 13-judge bench—the largest ever in Indian history—was constituted to hear the Kesavananda Bharati case. After 66 days of argument, the verdict was delivered on April 24, 1973. The Court, by a close vote of seven judges out of thirteen established groundbreaking precedent clarifying that even though Parliament has the constitutional power as outlined in Article 368, to make alterations to a wide range of provisions, there is no inherent right to fundamentally alter the very essence of the Constitution. The majority was formed by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and six other judges. Justice Khanna’s concurring opinion became pivotal; he held that amendments were valid only so long as they did not damage or destroy the basic structure.
Case Laws
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
This case stands out as the pioneering moment when the legal validity of Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution was put to test. It was the first time that this crucial aspect of our constitutional framework became the subject of a direct legal challenge before the courts. The Supreme Court upheld that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, stating that “law” under Article 13 did not include constitutional amendments.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
Here, the Court reaffirmed Shankari Prasad. It ruled that amendments made under Article 368 were not subject to judicial review, even if they affected Fundamental Rights. However, a few judges expressed doubts about this unlimited amending power.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
This was a turning point where the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The Court interpreted Article 13 broadly and restricted the power of Parliament, stating that any amendment violating Fundamental Rights was unconstitutional.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to strike down Clause 4 of Article 329A, inserted by the 39th Amendment to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial review. It was laid down by the Court that the conduct of elections in a free and just manner is an essential characteristic of our Constitution. This particular feature is considered so fundamental that it cannot be altered or abolished through any amendment, as it forms part if the “basic structure”.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
The Court continued to build upon the Basic Structure principle, making it more detailed and specific. It struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. A key takeaway from this decision was the emphasis that the inherent constraints on Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution are not just minor rules, but are themselves part of the Constitution’s basic, untouchable structure. This ensures that the power to change doesn’t become a power to destroy.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case continues to serve as an unshakeable foundation, a cornerstone, for how we interpret and understand constitutional law in India. Its legacy is so profound that it continues to be the basis for understanding the limits of constitutional amendment. It reasserted that the Constitution is not merely a political document but a moral compass for governance. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the judiciary ensured that the Parliament could not override the essential principles of the Constitution in the name of reform or progress. Over the decades, this doctrine has acted as a guardian against political misuse of constitutional amendments. It has withstood the test of time and changing governments, affirming the independence of the judiciary and the supremacy of constitutional ideals. The decision laid the foundation for a constitutional culture where checks and balances, accountability, and democratic values thrive. Even today, this judgment is cited in critical constitutional matters and continues to be a guiding light for constitutional interpretation, ensuring that the Constitution remains an instrument of governance and not a tool of political convenience.
FAQS
Q1. Who was Kesavananda Bharati and why did he go to court?
Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala. He approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Kerala government’s attempt to acquire his Mutt’s land under the Land Reforms Act, arguing that it violated his rights under Article 26.
Q2. What was the central contention in this case?
The main issue was whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, or whether there were inherent limitations to this power.
Q3. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
It is a judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution—like democracy, secularism, and judicial review—cannot be amended or destroyed by Parliament.
Q4. Why is this case considered a turning point in Indian constitutional law?
It established limits on Parliament’s power and ensured that essential elements of the Constitution remain protected from political manipulation.
Q5. How did Justice Khanna influence the outcome?
The crucial turning point in this closely decided case came down to single vote, and that vote was cast by Justice H.R. Khanna. His participation was instrumental in forming the slim 7-judge majority that ultimately shaped the final ruling.
