The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) is one of those rare moments in Indian history that completely changed the course of the nation’s democracy. It wasn’t just another court case — it was a turning point that defined how much power Parliament really has and how far the Supreme Court can go to protect the Constitution.
It all began when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a small religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the state’s land reform laws. On the surface, it looked like a simple property dispute. But as the case reached the Supreme Court, it turned into a massive constitutional debate — one that would decide the future of Indian democracy.
The key question before the Court was simple yet powerful:
Can Parliament change any part of the Constitution, even the parts that define India’s identity and basic principles?
After months of intense hearings, a 13-judge bench — the largest in India’s judicial history — delivered a historic verdict. The Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its “basic structure.”
This judgment gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, which still protects the core values of the Constitution — democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and fundamental rights.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was more than just a legal battle — it was a fight for balance between power and principle. It made sure that no government, no matter how strong, could ever rewrite the soul of the Constitution. Even today, this 1973 verdict stands as a guardian of Indian democracy, reminding us that the Constitution is not just a legal document — it’s the living heartbeat of the nation.
Who Was Kesavananda Bharati?
Kesavananda Bharati was not a politician, lawyer, or activist — he was a Hindu seer and spiritual leader from Kerala who ended up becoming the face of one of the most important constitutional cases in Indian history.
He was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious monastery located in Kasaragod district, Kerala. The mutt owned several pieces of land that were used for religious and charitable purposes. In the late 1960s, the Kerala government introduced land reform laws that aimed to limit how much land any individual or institution could own. These laws were meant to help poor farmers but also affected temples, mutts, and religious trusts like Edneer Mutt.
Feeling that the reforms would take away the mutt’s property and threaten its religious freedom, Kesavananda Bharati approached the Supreme Court of India in 1970, challenging these laws under Article 26 (which protects the right to manage religious affairs) and Article 31 (Right to Property, which was then a Fundamental Right).
What started as a property dispute soon turned into a historic constitutional battle. The case — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — led to the creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Even though Kesavananda Bharati himself was not deeply involved in the legal arguments, his name became immortal in Indian history. He lived a simple, spiritual life until his death in September 2020, but his case ensured that the soul of India’s Constitution — democracy, secularism, and rule of law — would always remain protected.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Case Name | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) |
| Year of Judgment | 24 April 1973 |
| Bench Strength | 13 Judges – the largest constitutional bench in Indian history |
| Petitioner | Swami Kesavananda Bharati, Head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala |
| Respondent | State of Kerala and the Government of India |
| Main Issue | Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights. |
| Key Amendments Challenged | 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments |
| Major Judgment | Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter or destroy its Basic Structure. |
| Doctrine Introduced | The Basic Structure Doctrine – limiting Parliament’s amending powers. |
| Basic Features Protected | Democracy, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights, Federalism, and Separation of Powers. |
| Verdict Split | 7 Judges in favor, 6 Judges against – decided by a narrow 7:6 majority. |
| Significance | Saved the Constitution from potential misuse by Parliament; ensured balance between Legislature and Judiciary. |
| Legacy | Foundation for modern constitutional law in India; upheld even in later cases like Minerva Mills (1980) and I.R. Coelho (2007). |
Background of the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
To understand the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case, we need to go back to the early decades after India’s independence. The Constitution of India came into effect in 1950, with the aim of creating a democratic, socialist, and welfare-based society. One of the main goals of the new government was to bring about economic equality through land reforms — redistributing land from big landlords to poor farmers.
However, this led to a major conflict between individual rights and state policies. Many landowners and religious institutions owned vast areas of land. When the government passed laws to take away these lands and redistribute them, the owners claimed that their Fundamental Rights — especially the Right to Property (Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31) — were being violated.
Several cases challenging land reform laws reached the Supreme Court. In early judgments like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), the Court held that Parliament had full power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. But in Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967), the Court took a completely opposite stand. It ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, as they form a core part of the Constitution.
This created a serious clash between the legislature and the judiciary. The government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, saw the judgment as an obstacle to social reforms and economic justice. To regain power over constitutional amendments, the government passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments — strengthening Parliament’s authority to change the Constitution and adding several laws to the Ninth Schedule (making them immune from judicial review).
Amid this political tension, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Acts of 1963 and 1971, which limited the property rights of religious institutions. During the proceedings, his petition expanded to question the very extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Thus, what began as a dispute over property rights became the biggest constitutional battle in Indian history — one that would decide whether the Parliament was supreme or whether the Constitution itself stood above all powers. The case eventually led to the creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which forever changed the relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution.
Why Was the Case Filed?
The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) didn’t start as a big constitutional battle — it actually began as a simple property dispute. The case was filed because Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt (a Hindu monastery in Kerala), believed that the Kerala government’s land reform laws were unfairly taking away the mutt’s property and violating its religious rights.
In the late 1960s, the Kerala government passed a series of land reform laws to reduce land inequality. These laws placed limits on how much land any person or institution could own and aimed to distribute excess land to landless farmers. While this was meant to promote social justice, it also affected religious and charitable institutions that owned land for their activities — including the Edneer Mutt.
Swami Kesavananda felt that this move not only took away the mutt’s land but also interfered with its right to manage religious property, guaranteed under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. He also claimed that the laws violated his Right to Property under Article 31, which at that time was a Fundamental Right.
So, in 1970, he filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969.
However, what began as a local dispute soon grew into a national constitutional issue. The case eventually questioned how much power Parliament really has to amend the Constitution — and whether it could take away or limit Fundamental Rights in the name of reform.
In short, Kesavananda filed the case to protect his mutt’s land and religious freedom, but it ended up rewriting the entire story of constitutional power and democracy in India.
Swami Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that his fundamental rights under the Constitution were being violated. He primarily challenged:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality)
- Article 19(1)(f) (Freedom to Acquire Property) (Later removed by the 44th Amendment)
- Article 25 (Freedom of Religion)
- Article 26 (Right to Manage Religious Affairs)
- Article 31 (Right to Property) (Later removed by the 44th Amendment)
At the time, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of constitutional amendments was uncertain, as it had ruled differently in past cases.
Previous Supreme Court Judgments That Led to This Case
Before the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) became the landmark it is today, there were a few major Supreme Court judgments that set the stage for it. These earlier cases shaped the long-running tug of war between Parliament and the Judiciary over who holds the final say in changing the Constitution.
The first big one was the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case. Here, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. This gave Parliament a free hand to modify the Constitution whenever it wanted.
Then came Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). The Court repeated its earlier stand, again saying that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was unlimited. So, till this point, the Judiciary believed that even Fundamental Rights could be changed by a constitutional amendment.
But everything flipped with I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). In this case, the Supreme Court took the opposite view — it ruled that Parliament cannot amend or take away Fundamental Rights. The Court said amendments are also “law” under Article 13, and since laws violating Fundamental Rights are void, amendments can’t touch them either.
This judgment shook Parliament and led to a series of constitutional amendments — like the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments — that tried to restore its supremacy.
All this back-and-forth — first giving power to Parliament, then taking it away — led directly to the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, where the Supreme Court finally struck a balance: Parliament can amend the Constitution, but not its basic structure.
Key Constitutional Amendments Challenged
When Swami Kesavananda Bharati filed his petition in 1970, it wasn’t just about land — it became a challenge to some of the most powerful constitutional amendments made by Parliament. These amendments had been passed to restore Parliament’s supremacy after earlier court rulings like the Golaknath case (1967) limited its powers. The main amendments questioned in the Kesavananda case were the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments.
The 24th Amendment Act (1971) was Parliament’s direct response to the Golaknath judgment. It clearly stated that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. It also made it mandatory for the President to give assent to any constitutional amendment bill.
The 25th Amendment Act (1971) went a step further. It limited the Right to Property (Article 31) by allowing the government to acquire private property for public use without full compensation. It replaced the word “compensation” with “amount,” giving Parliament more control over land reform laws.
Then came the 29th Amendment Act (1972), which added two Kerala land reform laws — the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1969 and 1971 — to the Ninth Schedule. This made them immune from judicial review, meaning courts couldn’t strike them down even if they violated Fundamental Rights.
So, when Kesavananda Bharati approached the Supreme Court, he didn’t just challenge the land laws — he questioned these three amendments themselves. The case asked one big question:
Can Parliament make changes so powerful that they even override citizens’ Fundamental Rights?
The answer — through the Basic Structure Doctrine — changed Indian constitutional history forever.
Key Issues Raised in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case was not just about one man’s property rights — it was a constitutional turning point that raised deep legal and political questions about the very structure of Indian democracy. The Supreme Court had to settle a historic conflict between Parliament’s authority and the Constitution’s supremacy. The case brought several key issues before the Court, which ultimately led to the creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Scope of Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution (Article 368)
The most important question in the case was whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was unlimited or limited. Could Parliament change any part of the Constitution, or were there inherent restrictions that even Parliament could not cross?
The government argued that Parliament had the absolute right to amend anything — including Fundamental Rights. The petitioners, however, claimed that Parliament was created by the Constitution, so it cannot destroy or rewrite the very document that gives it power. This raised the question: Is Parliament supreme, or is the Constitution supreme?
Can Fundamental Rights Be Amended or Taken Away?
Another major issue was whether Fundamental Rights could be amended, restricted, or removed by Parliament through constitutional amendments.
The Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967) case had earlier ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, as they form the core of the Constitution. However, through the 24th and 25th Amendments, the government reasserted its power to amend them.
So, the Supreme Court had to decide: Does Article 368 give Parliament the power to limit or abolish citizens’ fundamental rights for the sake of policy reforms?
Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
The case also raised the issue of which part of the Constitution is superior — Fundamental Rights (Part III) or Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).
The government claimed that Directive Principles, which aim to achieve social and economic justice, should take precedence, even if it means curtailing some Fundamental Rights.
The petitioners argued that both are important, but Fundamental Rights act as a safeguard against misuse of power, ensuring that the State does not violate citizens’ liberty in the name of development.
The Court had to find a balance between individual freedom and collective welfare.
Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments
The case directly challenged the constitutional validity of three major amendments:
-
The 24th Amendment (1971) – explicitly gave Parliament power to amend “any part” of the Constitution.
-
The 25th Amendment (1971) – allowed laws implementing Directive Principles to override Fundamental Rights.
-
The 29th Amendment (1972) – added two Kerala land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from judicial review.
The Court had to decide whether these amendments themselves were unconstitutional, as they seemed to tilt the balance of power entirely in Parliament’s favor.
Limits of Judicial Review
Another issue was whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review and strike down constitutional amendments passed by Parliament.
The government argued that once an amendment is passed under Article 368, it becomes part of the Constitution and cannot be challenged.
The petitioners countered that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and courts must have the power to ensure that Parliament does not exceed its limits.
Thus, the Court had to define the role of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional balance.
The Idea of a “Basic Structure” of the Constitution
Finally, the most profound issue was philosophical — whether the Constitution has a “basic structure” or core identity that cannot be changed.
If such a structure exists, what elements form it? Is it democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, or fundamental freedoms?
The Court had to decide if there are inherent principles that no government or Parliament could touch, no matter how large the majority in power.
In short, the key issues in the Kesavananda Bharati case revolved around power, limits, and balance — the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, the limits imposed by the Constitution itself, and the balance between citizens’ rights and the government’s authority.
The answers to these questions redefined Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court’s decision established that Parliament’s power to amend is vast but not absolute, and that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed.
These issues, debated in 1973, continue to shape how India’s democracy, judiciary, and legislature function even today.
Arguments in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case involved extensive legal debates on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Both sides—the petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati and others) and the government (represented by the State of Kerala and the Union of India)—presented strong arguments.
Arguments by the Petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati & Others)
In the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case, the petitioners — led by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, represented by legendary lawyers like Nani Palkhivala and M.C. Setalvad — presented some of the most powerful arguments in Indian constitutional history. Their main goal was to prove that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and that certain core features of the Constitution must remain untouched, no matter what the political majority in power desires.
These arguments shaped the foundation of what later became known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, the cornerstone of Indian democracy. Let’s understand their arguments in detail.
a) The Constitution is Supreme – Not the Parliament
The petitioners argued that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Parliament itself derives its power from the Constitution. Therefore, Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy or alter the very foundation of the document that gives it authority.
They said the power to “amend” does not mean the power to “rewrite” or “destroy.” In other words, Parliament is only a creature of the Constitution, not its master. If it could amend anything, it could even abolish democracy or fundamental rights — which would make the Constitution meaningless.
b) Article 368 Has Implied Limitations
The petitioners pointed out that Article 368, which deals with the procedure for constitutional amendments, does not explicitly say that Parliament can change every single provision. They claimed that there are implied limitations within the Constitution — meaning, even if not written in words, there are certain basic principles that cannot be violated.
These limitations come from the spirit and framework of the Constitution, which establishes India as a democratic, secular, and republican nation. Parliament can modify laws, but it cannot alter this identity.
c) Fundamental Rights Are Inviolable
Another major argument was that Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III, are the heart and soul of the Constitution. They protect citizens from arbitrary actions of the State and guarantee liberty, equality, and dignity.
The petitioners argued that allowing Parliament to amend or abolish these rights would destroy the balance between individual freedom and state power. They referred to the Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967) judgment, where the Supreme Court had already ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Hence, the petitioners insisted that Fundamental Rights are permanent and beyond Parliament’s reach.
d) Distinction Between ‘Amendment’ and ‘Destruction’
The petitioners stressed the difference between “amending” the Constitution and “destroying” it.
They argued that the word “amend” in Article 368 means making improvements or necessary adjustments, not changing the basic identity or philosophy of the document. For example, amending laws for better implementation is valid, but abolishing democracy, fundamental rights, or judicial review would mean destroying the Constitution’s essence.
e) Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The petitioners agreed that the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are important for social and economic reform. However, they maintained that these cannot override Fundamental Rights.
Both parts must coexist harmoniously — Fundamental Rights protect individual liberty, while Directive Principles guide the State toward social justice. The government cannot sacrifice basic freedoms in the name of implementing policy. They argued that the 25th Amendment, which gave primacy to Directive Principles over certain Fundamental Rights, violated this balance and was unconstitutional.
f) Judicial Review Is Part of the Basic Structure
The petitioners asserted that judicial review — the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of laws — is an essential feature of Indian democracy. It ensures that no organ of the government exceeds its authority.
If Parliament’s amendments were made immune from judicial scrutiny, it would mean Parliament could pass any law without accountability. The petitioners insisted that judicial review must remain intact to preserve the rule of law and prevent dictatorship.
g) Parliament Cannot Use Its Power to Destroy Democracy
A crucial part of the argument was that if Parliament’s amending power had no limits, it could easily destroy the democratic framework of the Constitution. For instance, it could abolish elections, suspend the judiciary, or declare a one-party rule.
The petitioners said such a possibility goes against the vision of the framers of the Constitution, who wanted a democracy governed by checks and balances, not an all-powerful legislature.
h) The Preamble Reflects the Constitution’s Basic Philosophy
The petitioners heavily relied on the Preamble — “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic.”
They argued that the Preamble expresses the spirit, philosophy, and purpose of the Constitution. Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that contradicts or destroys the ideals stated in the Preamble.
For example, if Parliament were allowed to remove democracy or secularism, it would go against the Constitution’s foundational promise to the people.
i) Separation of Powers Must Be Preserved
Another key argument was that separation of powers — between the legislature, executive, and judiciary — is one of the fundamental pillars of the Constitution.
If Parliament could amend any part without restriction, it could interfere with the functioning of the judiciary or the executive. The petitioners maintained that this separation is vital to maintaining checks and balances, preventing the concentration of power in any single branch.
j) Rule of Law and Equality Are Untouchable Principles
The petitioners argued that Rule of Law, Equality before Law (Article 14), and Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-26) form part of the essential constitutional framework. These are not mere provisions that Parliament can delete; they are timeless principles that ensure justice and fairness in governance.
In simple words, the petitioners’ arguments revolved around one powerful idea — Parliament is powerful but not all-powerful. The Constitution gives it the authority to make laws and amendments, but not the authority to destroy the Constitution itself.
They believed that the Constitution has a soul — made up of democracy, liberty, equality, secularism, and the rule of law — and that soul must remain untouchable, no matter what political power exists in the Parliament.
Their arguments ultimately persuaded a majority of the Supreme Court judges to hold that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. This historic decision ensured that the Constitution would remain a living, stable, and balanced document — protected from political misuse for all generations to come.
Arguments by the Government (State of Kerala & Union of India)
Their central argument was simple but powerful — Parliament, as the representative of the people, has the ultimate power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, if necessary for the nation’s progress and welfare. The government believed that the judiciary was overstepping its role by limiting this power.
Here’s a detailed explanation of the main arguments presented by the government during the case.
a) Parliament’s Power to Amend Is Unlimited Under Article 368
The government’s primary argument was that Article 368 of the Constitution clearly gives Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution.
They emphasized that the word “amend” means to make any change, including adding, altering, or repealing existing provisions. Therefore, the amending power was meant to be unlimited and absolute, covering all parts of the Constitution — from the Preamble to Fundamental Rights.
According to the government, the Constitution’s framers intended Parliament to have such wide powers to ensure that the Constitution could evolve with time and adapt to changing social, political, and economic needs.
b) Parliament Represents the Will of the People
The government argued that Parliament is the voice of the people. Since Members of Parliament are democratically elected, any amendment passed by them reflects the will of the people of India.
If the judiciary — which is not elected — restricts the amending power of Parliament, it would mean unelected judges are overruling the decisions of the people’s representatives, which goes against the democratic principle.
They claimed that in a democracy, the sovereign will of the people is supreme, and Parliament, being their representative, must have the authority to change the Constitution whenever necessary.
c) No Express Limitation on Parliament’s Power
The government pointed out that the Constitution nowhere mentions any specific limitation on Parliament’s amending power.
Article 368 only describes the procedure for amending the Constitution — it doesn’t say what cannot be amended. Therefore, any limitation imposed by the judiciary would be an artificial restriction, not supported by the Constitution itself.
In their view, if the framers of the Constitution wanted to place limits, they would have done so explicitly. Since they didn’t, the power to amend must be treated as absolute and unrestricted.
d) The Term “Amendment” Includes the Power to Repeal or Replace
The government’s lawyers argued that the word “amendment” should not be interpreted narrowly. It includes the power to repeal, replace, or modify any part of the Constitution, even the Fundamental Rights.
They said that if Parliament can make laws, it should also have the power to reshape the Constitution to suit changing circumstances. A Constitution that cannot be changed when society changes would soon become rigid and outdated.
Thus, they claimed that Parliament’s amending power was intended to be as wide as possible to ensure that the Constitution remains a living, flexible document.
e) The Goal of the Amendments Was Social and Economic Justice
The government emphasized that the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments — which were being challenged — were passed to achieve social and economic justice, as directed by the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) of the Constitution.
They argued that these amendments were necessary to implement land reforms, reduce inequality, and distribute resources fairly — all of which are goals enshrined in the Directive Principles.
According to them, if the judiciary keeps striking down such progressive laws in the name of Fundamental Rights, it would prevent the government from achieving the goals of the Constitution. Therefore, the amendments were not about destroying rights but balancing individual rights with collective welfare.
f) Fundamental Rights Are Not Absolute
The government argued that Fundamental Rights were never meant to be absolute or untouchable. They are subject to reasonable restrictions, as mentioned in the Constitution itself.
Hence, Parliament should be free to amend or adjust these rights to serve the broader interests of society. The government pointed out that India’s Constitution is not like the U.S. Constitution, where certain rights are absolute — in India, rights and duties coexist within a framework of social responsibility.
g) Judiciary Should Not Interfere with the Amending Power
The government maintained that once a Constitutional Amendment is properly passed by Parliament following Article 368, it becomes part of the Constitution and cannot be questioned in court.
If the judiciary starts reviewing constitutional amendments, it would lead to judicial supremacy, which goes against the principle of separation of powers.
They insisted that courts should interpret laws, not limit Parliament’s sovereign power to change the law.
h) The Basic Structure Concept Has No Legal Basis
The government strongly opposed the petitioners’ argument that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that cannot be altered. They said this idea has no mention in the Constitution and is purely a judicial invention.
According to them, if judges can decide what is “basic” and “non-basic,” it would make them more powerful than the Constitution itself. Such an undefined doctrine would lead to uncertainty and inconsistency in constitutional interpretation.
They warned that if the judiciary starts deciding what the “basic structure” is, it would paralyze the legislative process and weaken democracy.
i) The Preamble Is Not Legally Enforceable
The government also argued that the Preamble of the Constitution, though important, is not a source of power or limitation. It is a guiding statement of ideals, not a legal or enforceable provision.
Therefore, Parliament cannot be stopped from amending any part of the Constitution on the ground that it violates the Preamble. The government said the Preamble should not be treated as a constitutional limitation on Parliament’s powers.
j) Amendment Power Is Different from Legislative Power
The government clarified that constitutional amendment power (Article 368) is different from ordinary law-making power (Article 245). While ordinary laws must comply with Fundamental Rights, constitutional amendments are a higher form of law that can even modify those rights.
So, if Parliament amends a Fundamental Right, it cannot be struck down as unconstitutional, because it becomes part of the Constitution itself. This means no amendment can ever be unconstitutional, since it is passed under constitutional authority.
k) Social Transformation Requires Constitutional Flexibility
Another major argument by the government was that India is a developing nation facing challenges like poverty, illiteracy, and social inequality.
To bring social transformation, the government needs a flexible Constitution that allows it to introduce land reforms, industrial policies, and welfare programs without being blocked by legal technicalities.
If the judiciary imposes rigid restrictions on amendments, it would freeze the Constitution and make it impossible for the government to address changing social realities.
In summary, the government’s arguments centered on Parliament’s supremacy, democratic will, and the need for flexibility in the Constitution. They claimed that Parliament, as the representative of the people, should have unrestricted authority to amend the Constitution — including Fundamental Rights — to achieve the goals of social and economic justice.
The government opposed the idea of a “basic structure” as an invented judicial limitation, arguing that it had no constitutional basis. They maintained that judges cannot sit in judgment over Parliament’s power, as doing so would replace democracy with judicial dominance.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected this view in a 7–6 majority, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not absolute. The Court established that while Parliament can amend any provision, it cannot destroy the basic structure — thus striking a balance between democratic flexibility and constitutional integrity.
Verdict of the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case is widely regarded as the most historic judgment in Indian constitutional history. It was delivered on April 24, 1973, after an unprecedented 68 days of hearing, by the largest-ever Constitutional Bench of 13 judges in the Supreme Court of India.
The case was not just about one religious institution’s property rights — it was about who holds ultimate power in India: the Parliament or the Constitution itself. The decision permanently changed the course of India’s constitutional democracy by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which remains the cornerstone of constitutional interpretation to this day.
A Deeply Divided Bench – The 7:6 Judgment
The verdict was split by the narrowest possible margin — 7 judges to 6.
This razor-thin difference decided the fate of India’s democracy.
-
The majority of 7 judges held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure or essential features.
-
The minority of 6 judges, on the other hand, believed that Parliament’s power was absolute and unlimited, allowing it to amend or even remove Fundamental Rights if it wished.
Thus, by just one vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament is not supreme — the Constitution is.
Key Points of the Majority Judgment
The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, along with Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Reddy, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna, laid down the following key principles:
-
Parliament Can Amend Any Part of the Constitution:
The Court upheld the 24th Amendment (1971), confirming that Parliament indeed has the power to amend “any part” of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. -
But There Are Implied Limits — The Basic Structure Cannot Be Altered:
While Parliament can make amendments, it cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or essential framework.
This means that amendments which change the core identity of the Constitution — such as democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, or secularism — are unconstitutional. -
Fundamental Rights Can Be Amended, But Not Abolished:
The Court stated that Parliament can make reasonable changes to Fundamental Rights to promote social welfare, but it cannot completely take them away or make them meaningless. -
Judicial Review Cannot Be Removed:
The power of judicial review — the right of the courts to examine whether laws and amendments violate the Constitution — was declared part of the basic structure. Hence, Parliament cannot pass a law that bars the courts from reviewing it. -
The Preamble Has Constitutional Significance:
The judges clarified that the Preamble is not just a decorative introduction — it forms part of the Constitution and reflects its philosophy and guiding principles. Any amendment that destroys the values mentioned in the Preamble (like democracy, secularism, and liberty) would violate the Constitution’s basic structure. -
Validation of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments:
-
24th Amendment: Declared valid — Parliament does have amending power over all parts of the Constitution.
-
25th Amendment: Partially valid — The first part (giving effect to Directive Principles) was upheld, but the second part (denying judicial review) was struck down.
-
29th Amendment: Upheld, but laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are still subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
-
Justice H.R. Khanna – The Deciding Vote
The decisive vote came from Justice H.R. Khanna, whose judgment balanced both sides’ arguments.
He agreed that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, he also held that there are inherent limitations — Parliament cannot destroy the essential elements of the Constitution.
Justice Khanna’s single vote tipped the scale 7–6 in favor of the Basic Structure Doctrine, making him one of the most respected figures in Indian judicial history.
Key Principles Defined as the Basic Structure
Although the judges did not give a fixed list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” they identified several features that form its foundation. These include:
-
Supremacy of the Constitution
-
Sovereign, democratic, and republican form of government
-
Secular character of the Constitution
-
Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
-
Federalism (distribution of powers between Centre and States)
-
Rule of law
-
Judicial review
-
Free and fair elections
-
Unity and integrity of India
-
Freedom and dignity of the individual
-
Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
These principles together ensure that no government can destroy the spirit of the Constitution, even with a majority in Parliament.
The Minority Opinion – Parliament Is Supreme
The six dissenting judges, including Justices A.N. Ray, Beg, Mathew, Dwivedi, Palekar, and Chandrachud (C.J.), disagreed with the majority.
They held that the power of amendment under Article 368 is absolute, and there are no limits on Parliament’s power to change the Constitution.
Their reasoning was that the people’s will is expressed through Parliament, and limiting its power would mean placing unelected judges above elected representatives, which could lead to judicial dictatorship.
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment immediately redefined the relationship between Parliament and the Judiciary. It ensured that:
-
Parliament could continue to amend the Constitution but only within the limits of the basic structure.
-
The Supreme Court became the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, with the power to review even constitutional amendments.
-
The Constitution became supreme, not Parliament.
The verdict preserved the democratic balance between the three branches of government — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — ensuring that no one branch could dominate the others.
Political Aftermath
The Indira Gandhi government was unhappy with the judgment because it restricted Parliament’s power. In response, during the Emergency (1975–1977), the government passed the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), also known as the “Mini-Constitution.”
This amendment attempted to remove all limits on Parliament’s power and declared that constitutional amendments could not be challenged in any court. However, this was later struck down in Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Basic Structure Doctrine cannot be removed or altered.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
It simply means that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot change or destroy the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution.
In short —
Parliament can change the Constitution, but it can’t break it.
So yes, Parliament can add, delete, or modify many provisions, but it cannot alter the core identity of the Constitution — the parts that make India what it is: a democratic, secular, rule-of-law-based republic.
The story begins with a dispute over land reform laws in Kerala. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious institution, challenged these laws saying they violated his Right to Property, a Fundamental Right under the Constitution at that time.
This case quickly grew into something much bigger. The main question became:
Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution, even to the point of taking away Fundamental Rights?
A 13-judge bench — the largest ever in Indian judicial history — heard the case.
The verdict was deeply divided (7–6), but the majority held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
And just like that, the Basic Structure Doctrine was born.
What Is Included in the Basic Structure?
The Supreme Court didn’t give a fixed list of what counts as the “basic structure,” but over time, it clarified through different judgments what features are so fundamental that they cannot be destroyed.
Some of the key elements include:
-
Supremacy of the Constitution
-
Rule of Law
-
Sovereignty and Unity of India
-
Democracy
-
Republican form of government
-
Separation of Powers between Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
-
Judicial Review (the power of courts to review laws and amendments)
-
Free and fair elections
-
Federal character of the Constitution
-
Fundamental Rights
-
Secularism
-
Independence of Judiciary
-
Parliamentary system of government
In simple words, these are the non-negotiables of the Indian Constitution — the things that can never be removed, no matter who’s in power.
Why the Doctrine Was Needed
The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a safety net to prevent misuse of power by Parliament.
Before this doctrine existed, Parliament had tried several times to limit Fundamental Rights through amendments (like the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments). The idea was that social reform laws shouldn’t be stopped by courts.
But the problem was — if Parliament could amend anything, it could even abolish democracy or free elections someday.
That’s why the Supreme Court stepped in and said:
“You can amend, but you can’t destroy the essence of the Constitution.”
This doctrine keeps a check and balance between the Legislature and the Judiciary, ensuring that no branch of government becomes all-powerful.
Later Developments
The Basic Structure Doctrine has been reaffirmed many times by the Supreme Court in later cases.
Some famous ones include:
-
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – The Court said free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.
-
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – The Court held that the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure.
-
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (which are normally protected from judicial review) can be struck down if they violate the basic structure.
The Basic Structure Doctrine is like a constitutional Lakshman Rekha — a red line that Parliament cannot cross.
It protects the soul of the Constitution — things like freedom, equality, justice, and democracy. Parliament can make changes, adapt to modern times, and even amend rights, but it can never destroy what makes India a free and fair democratic republic.
Even today, whenever Parliament passes a big constitutional amendment — whether it’s about reservations, federalism, or judicial reforms — it is always tested against the Basic Structure Doctrine.
It keeps the balance of power intact and ensures that no government, no matter how strong, can rewrite the Constitution’s fundamental principles for its own benefit.
Impact of the Kesavananda Bharati Case
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the most important constitutional judgments in Indian history. It completely changed how we look at the power of Parliament, the role of the Supreme Court, and the protection of Fundamental Rights.
Before this case, Parliament believed it had unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. It could even change or remove Fundamental Rights. But the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Kesavananda case put a limit on that power through what is now known as the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Court said Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure — things like democracy, secularism, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence.
This judgment gave the Judiciary a strong role as the guardian of the Constitution. It also made Fundamental Rights more secure, ensuring that no government could take away people’s basic freedoms in the name of reforms or politics.
The case also laid the foundation for future constitutional decisions like Minerva Mills (1980) and I.R. Coelho (2007), which reaffirmed that even Parliament’s amendments must respect the Constitution’s core values.
In simple words, the Kesavananda Bharati case protected the soul of the Indian Constitution. It ensured that while laws can change with time, the spirit of democracy and justice stays untouched.
Because of this case, India’s Constitution became a living document — flexible enough to grow, yet strong enough to protect its essence forever.
Conclusion
On April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment introducing the basic structure doctrine for the first time. This case holds significance as the Supreme Court, with ingenuity and sagacity, passed a judgment that granted extensive powers to Parliament but restricted alterations to the fundamental features of the Constitution.
The judgment became a bulwark for Indian democracy, shaping the trajectory of the nation. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, Kesavananda Bharati lost, compelling him to relinquish the land associated with his monastery.
Thus, Kesavananda Bharati's case, also known as Kesavananda Bharati's case, concluded with the petitioner himself on the losing side. Bharati died at a hospital in Mangalore on 6 September 2020 from cardiopulmonary arrest, aged 79.
COMMENTS