Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Judgment That Saved the Constitution

 

KESAVANANDA BHARTI VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973)

Citation: Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

Bench: 13 Judges (Largest Constitution Bench in Indian Judicial history)

Majority: 7:6

Date of Judgement: April 24, 1973

Author- Simple Kumari, B.A.LLB(Hons), S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that established the Basic Structure Doctrine, shaping the future of Indian constitutional law. The case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged Kerala’s land reform laws affecting his property rights. The key issue evolved into whether Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

By a narrow majority of 7:6, the Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its basic structure. Core principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, secularism, judicial review, and separation of powers were identified as the part of this unavoidable structure.

This judgment placed substantive limits on parliamentary power and reinforced the judiciary’s role as the protector of constitutional values, preserving India’s democratic foundation and preventing authoritarian misuse of constitutional amendments.

PRIMARY DETAILS

Detail	Information
Case Name	Kesavananda Bharati v. state of Kerala
Citation	AIR 1973 SC 1461
Date of Judgment	April 24, 1973
Petitioner	His holiness kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala
Respondent	State of Kerala
Bench Strength	13 judges (largest-ever constitutional bench in India)
Majority	7:6
Key Legal Provisions Involved	Article 368- Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
Main Issues	Whether parliament`s power to amend the Constitution is unlimited
Doctrine Established	Basic Structure Doctrine
Held	Parliament can amend the constitution but cannot alter its basic structure
Impact	Limited parliament`s amending power; strengthened constitutional supremacy

 

 

BACKGROUND AND FACTS-

Background

 

Post-independence, India aimed to implement socio-economic reforms, particularly through land redistribution laws to eliminate inequality and feudal land ownership. However, many such laws were struck down by courts for violating Fundamental Rights, especially the right to property. In response, Parliament enacted a series of constitutional amendments — notably the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments — to assert its authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

 

The judiciary, in earlier cases like Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), had ruled that Parliament can not amend Fundamental Rights, leading to a constitutional conflict between Parliament's will and judicial review. This growing tension between legislative power and constitutional limits leads the basis for the Kesavananda Bharati case.

 

Facts

 

Kesavananda Bharati, the spiritual leader of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which allowed the state to acquire his religious institution’s land. He filed a petition under Article 32, claiming violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, and 26 of the Constitution.

 

Though the case began as a challenge to land acquisition, it evolved into a landmark constitutional battle over whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution had any limits.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

Issues Involved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

 

1. Extent of Parliament’s Amending Power (Article 368):Whether the Parliament has unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

 

2. Validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments:Whether these amendments, which expanded Parliament’s power and curtailed judicial review, were constitutionally valid.

 

3. Whether Fundamental Rights Can Be Abrogated:Can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights, especially those in Part III of the Constitution?

 

4. Doctrine of Basic Structure:Whether there are inherent limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution — i.e., can the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution be altered or destroyed?

 

5. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments:

Does the judiciary have the authority to review and change the constitutional amendments which violate the basic structure?

 

6. Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

Whether Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) can override or limit Fundamental Rights in the process of constitutional amendment.These issues collectively led to the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which now serves as a constitutional safeguard against excessive legislative power.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), both sides presented powerful constitutional arguments that shaped the future of Indian democracy.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Kesavananda Bharati argued that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and must be subject to implied constitutional limitations. The petitioners contended that Fundamental Rights, especially those in Part III, are the cornerstone of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated or destroyed, even by constitutional amendments. Citing Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), they emphasized that Parliament could not alter the basic framework of the Constitution. They also asserted that judicial review is a basic feature and that removing it would destroy the essence of the Constitution. The supremacy of the Constitution over all organs, including Parliament, was a central point.

 

Respondents’ Arguments:

The State of Kerala and the Union of India argued that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, to serve the national interest. They asserted that constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13 and thus cannot be judicially reviewed. The government also emphasized that Directive Principles must guide governance and can override individual rights to achieve social and economic justice in a democracy.

Legal Aspects Involved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

1. Article 368 – Power to Amend the Constitution:Central to the case was the interpretation of Article 368, which empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Court had to decide whether this power is absolute or subject to limitations, and whether it includes the power to alter the basic framework of the Constitution.

2. Article 13– Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights:Article 13 declares that laws violating Fundamental Rights are void. A key issue was whether constitutional amendments are considered "law" under this article, and thus subject to judicial review.

3. Fundamental Rights (Part III):The case questioned whether Fundamental Rights, including the right to property (Article 31, now repealed), freedom of religion (Article 25–26), and equality before law (Article 14), could be amended or taken away.

4. Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV):The conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights was central, especially in relation to land reform and socio-economic justice.

5. 5. Judicial Review:The case reinforced the concept of judicial review as a basic feature, asserting the judiciary's power to strike down constitutional amendments that violate the Constitution's core values.

6. 6.Basic Structure Doctrine (Evolved Legal Principle):This case gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, a legal principle that limits Parliament’s power to amend essential features of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court delivered its historic verdict on April 24, 1973, in a 7:6 majority, making it the most significant constitutional ruling in Indian history. The central question was whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.

 

Majority View (7 Judges):

 

.The Court held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights.

.However, this power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution.

.The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which states that certain core principles—such as rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, secularism, democracy, and the supremacy of the Constitution—must be preserved and cannot be amended, even by constitutional amendment.

 

Minority View (6 Judges):

 

The dissenting judges held that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is absolute, and there are no inherent limitations on its amending power.

 

Outcome:

.The 24th and 29th Amendments were upheld.

.Parts of the 25th Amendment were declared invalid as they violated the basic structure.

.The judgment preserved the balance between constitutional flexibility and rigidity, safeguarding democracy by preventing authoritarian alterations to the Constitution.

.This decision permanently reshaped Indian constitutional law.

IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is one of the most significant rulings in Indian constitutional history, as it introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroyits basic structure, which includes principles like democracy, secularism, rule of law, and judicial review. This doctrine ensures that the core values of the Constitution remain intact, protecting it from arbitrary changes. The judgment strengthened judicial supremacy and has since guided all constitutional amendments, preserving the spirit of Indian democracy.

CONCLUSION

The Kesavananda Bharati case stands as a historic turning point in Indian constitutional law, establishing that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is broad but not unlimited. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that certain foundational principles—such as democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and the rule of law—remain beyond the reach of even the highest legislative authority. The decision preserved the supremacy of the Constitution over transient political majorities and protected citizens’ rights from being diluted through unchecked constitutional amendments.

 

This judgment struck a delicate balance between flexibility and rigidity, allowing the Constitution to evolve while safeguarding its core identity. It also reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional morality and institutional integrity. Personally, I believe this judgment was not just a legal landmark but a moral one, demonstrating the judiciary’s courage in defending constitutional democracy. In a rapidly changing political landscape, the Basic Structure Doctrine continues to serve as a shield against authoritarianism and ensures that the Constitution remains a living document rooted in justice, liberty, and equality. It is an essential affirmation of the vision of the Constitution’s framers and a pillar of India’s democratic foundation.

• Kesavananda Bharati case summary
• Basic Structure Doctrine
• Landmark Supreme Court judgments India
• Article 368 Constitution of India
• Right to property in Indian Constitution
• 24th 25th 29th Constitutional Amendments
• Judicial review in India
• Rule of law and constitutional supremacy
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab
• Kesavananda case verdict and impact

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is the most important constitutional case in Indian history. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, placing limits on Parliament's amending powers under Article 368 and safeguarding India’s democracy.