The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharti case is one of the most crucial cases in India, especially for law students. The significance lies in the landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court during this case.
This case holds the record as the longest-running case in the Supreme Court, spanning 68 days. Remarkably, more than 100 cases were set aside to prioritize this case. To comprehend the implications, a comparison was made with the constitutions of over 70 countries.
The judgment delivered in this case was extensive, totaling 703 pages. In essence, the Kesavananda Bharti case stands out as one of the pivotal legal cases in India.
![]() |
Image Source: wikimedia.org |
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the most significant judgments in Indian constitutional law. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring that fundamental rights and democratic principles remain protected.
Background of the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case arose due to a conflict between the right to property and the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It was a direct challenge to the Kerala government’s land reform laws, but it eventually led to one of the most significant constitutional rulings in Indian history—the Basic Structure Doctrine.
1. Who Was Kesavananda Bharati?
Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in Kerala. He was concerned that the Kerala government’s land reform laws could take away the Mutt's land and restrict its management. To protect his institution's property, he decided to challenge these laws in the Supreme Court.
2. Why Was the Case Filed?
In 1969, the Kerala government, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, sought to impose restrictions on land ownership. Religious institutions, including the Edneer Mutt, were not exempt from these restrictions, which meant that the government could take over a significant portion of the Mutt’s land.
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.
3. Previous Supreme Court Judgments That Led to This Case
The Kesavananda Bharati case was influenced by two major Supreme Court rulings:
a) Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
The Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case was the first major constitutional case in independent India that addressed the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to Fundamental Rights. The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
The case arose when Shankari Prasad, a landowner, challenged the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B to protect land reform laws from being challenged in court. These provisions were designed to implement agrarian reforms by abolishing the Zamindari system and redistributing land among the landless. Shankari Prasad argued that the amendment violated his fundamental rights under Article 13(2), which prohibits the state from making laws that infringe upon Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is absolute and that an amendment does not fall under the definition of "law" under Article 13. This meant that Fundamental Rights could be amended by Parliament, even if such amendments restricted individual rights. The judgment gave Parliament supreme authority to amend any part of the Constitution without judicial interference.
The Shankari Prasad case set an important precedent but was later overruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended by Parliament. However, this position was again reversed in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
b) Golaknath Case (1967)
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case was a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional history that dealt with the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, overturning the earlier precedent set by the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and the Sajjan Singh case (1965).
The case arose when the Golaknath family, which owned a large amount of agricultural land in Punjab, challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which imposed landholding limits. The family argued that these land reform laws violated their Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). They contended that the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Constitutional Amendments, which placed land reform laws under the Ninth Schedule, were unconstitutional as they took away their fundamental rights.
A majority of six judges in an 11-judge bench held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, as doing so would alter the core structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment but does not grant the power to amend Fundamental Rights. It also stated that Article 13(2) applies to constitutional amendments, meaning that any amendment that takes away Fundamental Rights would be void.
The ruling created a constitutional crisis, as it restricted Parliament’s ability to carry out social and economic reforms, particularly land reforms. In response, Parliament passed the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971), explicitly granting itself the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. This led to the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Supreme Court overruled Golaknath but introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amendment power.
The Kesavananda Bharati case challenged these amendments, questioning whether Parliament had the authority to change even the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. Key Constitutional Amendments Challenged
During the hearing of the case, Kesavananda Bharati’s lawyers, led by Nani Palkhivala, argued that Parliament had no right to alter the Constitution’s fundamental structure. The case primarily challenged:
- 24th Amendment (1971): Allowed Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- 25th Amendment (1971): Gave Parliament power to limit the Right to Property.
- 29th Amendment (1972): Added the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the 9th Schedule, making it immune to judicial review.
5. Importance of the Case
This case was not just about property rights but about a much larger issue—the power of Parliament versus the rights of citizens. The Supreme Court had to decide whether Parliament had absolute power to amend the Constitution or if there were limits to this power.
This led to the formation of the largest-ever Supreme Court bench in Indian history—13 judges—to hear the case. The verdict ultimately shaped the future of Indian democracy by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The Kesavananda Bharati case started as a dispute over land reforms but became a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It questioned the extent of Parliament’s power and led to the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution could never be altered. This case remains one of the most important legal battles in India’s history, preserving the fundamental democratic and constitutional values of the country.
Key Issues Raised in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case raised several fundamental constitutional questions that shaped Indian democracy. It was not just about property rights but about the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights. Here are the key issues raised in the case:
1. Can Parliament Amend Fundamental Rights?
- The primary issue was whether Parliament has the absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- The Supreme Court had ruled differently in previous cases:
- Shankari Prasad (1951): Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
- Golaknath (1967): Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
- The Kesavananda Bharati case aimed to settle this conflict once and for all.
2. Does the Constitution Have a ‘Basic Structure’ That Cannot Be Altered?
- The petitioners argued that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot change its "basic structure."
- The question before the court was: What are the core principles of the Constitution that must remain untouched?
- This issue led to the formation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became a landmark principle in Indian constitutional law.
3. Was the 24th Amendment (1971) Constitutional?
- The 24th Amendment was passed by Parliament to overturn the Golaknath ruling and give itself the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- The petitioners challenged this amendment, arguing that it gave too much power to Parliament.
4. Was the 25th Amendment (1971) Constitutional?
- The 25th Amendment limited the Right to Property (Article 31) and stated that laws related to property acquisition could not be challenged in court on the grounds of Fundamental Rights.
- The petitioners argued that this violated the right to constitutional remedies (Article 32) and weakened judicial review.
5. Can Laws Under the 9th Schedule Be Immune from Judicial Review?
- The 9th Schedule was created to protect certain laws from being challenged in court.
- The 29th Amendment added the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the 9th Schedule, making it immune from judicial review.
- The petitioners argued that this violated the fundamental principle of checks and balances and gave Parliament unchecked power.
6. What is the Scope of Judicial Review?
- The case also questioned whether the Supreme Court has the power to strike down constitutional amendments if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
- The government argued that judicial review should not apply to constitutional amendments, while the petitioners claimed that the judiciary must protect the Constitution from arbitrary changes.
7. Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- The case raised an important question about the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).
- Should Directive Principles (like land reforms) override Fundamental Rights (like the right to property)?
- The court had to decide how to balance social justice with individual rights.
The Kesavananda Bharati case addressed crucial constitutional issues that shaped India’s democracy. The Supreme Court’s ruling led to the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that certain core principles—like democracy, secularism, and judicial review—can never be altered. The case reinforced the idea that the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament.
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.
1. Arguments by the Petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati & Others)
A. Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution is Not Absolute
- The petitioners argued that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental character.
- They contended that the power to amend does not include the power to destroy or alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
B. Protection of Fundamental Rights
- The petitioners opposed the 24th and 25th Amendments, stating that Fundamental Rights (such as the Right to Property) were being weakened.
- They argued that Fundamental Rights are essential to democracy and cannot be taken away by Parliament.
C. Judicial Review is a Basic Feature of the Constitution
- The petitioners emphasized that the judiciary must have the power to review and strike down unconstitutional amendments.
- They challenged the 9th Schedule, arguing that laws placed under it should not be immune from judicial review.
D. Democracy and Separation of Powers Must Be Maintained
- The petitioners warned that if Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution without restriction, India could become a dictatorship.
- They argued that separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary was a fundamental feature of the Constitution that must be preserved.
2. Arguments by the Government (State of Kerala & Union of India)
A. Parliament Has Absolute Power to Amend the Constitution
- The government argued that Article 368 gives Parliament the unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- They contended that since the Constitution was created by the people through their representatives, Parliament, as a representative body, has the right to amend it as needed.
B. Fundamental Rights Are Not Above the Constitution
- The government claimed that no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, is beyond amendment.
- They argued that since Parliament has the power to create Fundamental Rights, it also has the power to modify or remove them.
C. Amendments Are Necessary for Social and Economic Justice
- The government justified the 24th and 25th Amendments as necessary for land reforms and social justice.
- They argued that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) should be given priority over Fundamental Rights to ensure equality and economic development.
D. Judicial Review Should Not Apply to Constitutional Amendments
- The government opposed the idea that courts can review constitutional amendments, arguing that this would make the judiciary more powerful than Parliament.
- They claimed that since Parliament represents the people, its decisions should be final and not subject to judicial interference.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was a historic legal battle between Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution and the need to protect its core principles. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its "basic structure". This judgment ensured that democracy, secularism, and judicial review remain protected in India.
Verdict of the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The verdict of the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) was delivered by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, making it the largest bench in Indian judicial history. The case was decided by a narrow margin of 7-6, with the majority ruling that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its basic structure. This landmark judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s amending powers to ensure that fundamental principles of the Constitution remain intact.
The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. During the proceedings, the case expanded to question Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights and whether earlier Supreme Court decisions in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) correctly interpreted Article 368.
In its historic verdict, the Supreme Court overruled the Golaknath judgment, which had previously held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all. The Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it could not alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. This meant that democracy, secularism, judicial review, and the rule of law could not be abolished through amendments.
Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, in his opinion, emphasized that the preamble and key constitutional principles form the core of the Constitution. Justice H.R. Khanna, whose vote proved decisive in the 7-6 judgment, stated that Parliament’s amending power is broad but not absolute, ensuring that no government could alter India’s democratic framework or fundamental values.
The judgment directly impacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which sought to give Parliament unrestricted power over property rights and fundamental rights. The Court upheld these amendments partially, allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights but struck down provisions that sought to curtail judicial review.
The Kesavananda Bharati case thus established a constitutional safeguard against the misuse of power, ensuring that no future government could fundamentally alter India’s democratic and secular nature. This doctrine was later reaffirmed in cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), further strengthening India’s constitutional democracy.
The Supreme Court of India delivered its historic verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case on April 24, 1973. The ruling was delivered by a 13-judge bench, making it the largest constitutional bench in Indian history. The judgment had a 7:6 majority, meaning that 7 judges ruled in favor of the "Basic Structure Doctrine", while 6 judges dissented.
Key Highlights of the Verdict
1. Parliament Can Amend the Constitution but Not Its "Basic Structure"
- The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.
- However, this power is not unlimited—Parliament cannot alter or destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
2. Establishment of the "Basic Structure Doctrine"
- The judgment introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine," which states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or removed by Parliament.
- While the court did not provide a fixed list, some elements of the basic structure include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic, and secular nature of India
- Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Fundamental Rights
3. Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments
- The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, which made it clear that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- The 25th Amendment was partially upheld—while Parliament can modify property rights, it cannot take away the right to judicial review.
- The 29th Amendment was upheld, allowing land reform laws to be placed in the 9th Schedule, but these laws would still be subject to the "basic structure" principle.
4. Judicial Review is an Essential Part of the Constitution
- The Court reaffirmed that Judicial Review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution.
- Parliament cannot remove the power of the courts to review constitutional amendments.
Impact of the Verdict
1. Strengthened Constitutional Protection
- The judgment ensured that Parliament cannot make India a dictatorship by altering fundamental principles of the Constitution.
2. Limited the Power of Parliament
- Before this case, Parliament believed it had absolute power to amend the Constitution.
- The ruling placed a restriction on Parliament’s amending power, ensuring that it cannot violate essential features of democracy.
3. Shaped Future Constitutional Amendments
- Many constitutional amendments and laws were later challenged using the "Basic Structure Doctrine".
- For example, the Minerva Mills case (1980) struck down amendments that tried to limit judicial review.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was a landmark decision that preserved democracy and constitutional supremacy in India. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that no government could change the fundamental identity of the Constitution. This judgment remains one of the most significant rulings in Indian constitutional history.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that certain essential features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament. These include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereignty and Integrity of India
- Democratic and Republican Form of Government
- Secularism
- Separation of Powers
- Judicial Review
- Federalism
- Independence of the Judiciary
- Rule of Law
- Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a crucial judicial principle in India that safeguards the fundamental framework of the Constitution. It ensures that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core principles. This doctrine emerged from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that certain fundamental features of the Constitution must remain unchanged, regardless of any amendments made by the government. This decision marked a significant turning point in Indian constitutional law by establishing a balance between parliamentary authority and constitutional integrity.
Before the Kesavananda Bharati case, Parliament believed it had unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Earlier Supreme Court decisions reflected conflicting views on this matter. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Court upheld Parliament’s authority to amend Fundamental Rights, whereas in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all. The Kesavananda Bharati case resolved this debate by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which allowed amendments but prohibited Parliament from altering the Constitution’s fundamental identity.
Although the Supreme Court did not define a precise list of basic structure elements, subsequent rulings have identified several key principles. The supremacy of the Constitution ensures that it remains the highest law of the land, preventing any branch of government from undermining its foundational values. The sovereignty, socialism, secularism, and democratic nature of India must be preserved, as these principles define the nation’s identity. The separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary ensures that no single branch dominates, maintaining a system of checks and balances.
Judicial review is another fundamental aspect of the Basic Structure Doctrine, empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts to strike down unconstitutional amendments. Federalism, which defines the distribution of power between the Union and State governments, cannot be abolished. The unity and integrity of India must be upheld to prevent any division of the country. Free and fair elections are essential to sustaining a democratic system, ensuring that power remains with the people. The protection of Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law guarantees that every citizen enjoys equality and justice, shielding individuals from arbitrary state actions.
The doctrine has played a crucial role in preventing the misuse of power by Parliament. It ensures that no ruling government can alter the Constitution in a way that threatens democracy or establishes authoritarian rule. Strengthening judicial review, it allows courts to invalidate amendments that violate the Constitution’s core principles. Several landmark cases have reaffirmed this doctrine. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court ruled that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court held that Parliament cannot destroy the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
The Basic Structure Doctrine is a guardian of India’s democracy, ensuring that the fundamental values of the Constitution remain protected. Without it, Parliament would have unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, potentially leading to an erosion of fundamental rights and democratic principles. This doctrine upholds the vision of the framers of the Constitution and ensures that India remains a sovereign, secular, and democratic republic.
Impact of the Kesavananda Bharati Case
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law, governance, and democracy. The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. By ruling that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered, the judgment ensured that democracy, secularism, the rule of law, and judicial review remain intact.
One of the most significant impacts of the case was that it restricted the absolute power of Parliament. Before this ruling, Parliament believed it had unlimited authority under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its basic structure. This decision created a balance between legislative power and constitutional supremacy, preventing any government from making drastic changes that could undermine democratic principles.
The judgment also strengthened the role of the Judiciary by reaffirming the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court and High Courts were empowered to strike down any constitutional amendment that violated the basic structure. This ensured that no ruling government could pass laws that threatened democracy, fundamental rights, or the federal structure of India. Over the years, courts have used this doctrine to protect key constitutional principles.
A major impact of the Kesavananda Bharati case was seen during the Emergency (1975-77). Indira Gandhi’s government attempted to amend the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment, aiming to weaken judicial review and give Parliament unrestricted amending power. However, after the Emergency ended, the Supreme Court, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, ensuring that Parliament could not override fundamental rights.
The ruling also had a long-term effect on India’s political and legal landscape. It safeguarded federalism by preventing Parliament from centralizing power excessively. It upheld the separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, ensuring that no branch could dominate the others. Additionally, it protected free and fair elections, an essential element of democracy, as reaffirmed in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).
Since the Kesavananda Bharati case, courts have frequently invoked the Basic Structure Doctrine to strike down unconstitutional amendments. For instance, in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 could still be reviewed if they violated the basic structure. Similarly, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Court held that even laws protected under the Ninth Schedule must comply with fundamental rights.
The case remains a cornerstone of constitutional law in India. It acts as a safeguard against authoritarianism, ensuring that no ruling party can manipulate the Constitution for political gain. By protecting democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial independence, the Kesavananda Bharati case continues to shape India’s legal and political framework. The Basic Structure Doctrine remains a powerful tool for preserving the Constitution’s core values and preventing any future attempts to weaken its foundational principles.
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