Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): A Landmark in Indian Constitutional Law

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): A Landmark in Indian Constitutional Law

Author- Priyanka Yadav, B.A.LL.B(hons.), S.S. Khanna Girls Degree College, University Of Allahabad , Prayagraj

Court -Supreme Court of India

Full case name - His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.[1]

Decided -24 April 1973

Citations - 1973 Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1; 1973 INSC 91; (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461;

Abstract

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional history that established the doctrine of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This case resolved the conflict between Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the judiciary’s duty to protect its fundamental framework. The decision reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and set limits on Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368. This research article explores the background, issues, arguments, judgment, and significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Introduction

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[(1973) 4 SCC 225]¹ stands as a monumental judgment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It fundamentally redefined the relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution of India by propounding the Basic Structure Doctrine. This case was a culmination of a long-standing constitutional debate on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, especially in light of earlier cases such as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India² and Golaknath v. State of Punjab³.

The decision, delivered by a 13-judge bench—the largest ever constituted in the history of the Supreme Court of India—laid the foundation of a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. It ensured that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, such power was not unlimited.

 Background and Context

Judiciary and the legislature during the 1960s and early 1970s. After independence, India embarked The background of this case can be traced to the growing tension between the on a path of social and economic transformation. Parliament enacted several constitutional amendments to implement land reforms and equitable distribution of resources, often affecting the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.

Earlier, in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India⁴ (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab⁵ (1967), the Court reversed this view, holding that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. This decision created a constitutional deadlock, prompting Parliament to enact the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments to reassert its amending power.

 Facts of the Case

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in Kerala, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (as amended in 1971). The Act sought to impose restrictions on the management of the Mutt’s property, thereby allegedly violating the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31.

During the proceedings, the petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which were passed to nullify the effect of Golaknath and to protect certain laws from judicial review.

 

Issues Before the Court

The following key constitutional questions were raised:

1. Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

2. Whether the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments are valid.

3. Whether Fundamental Rights can be abridged, amended, or destroyed by constitutional amendment.

4. Whether there are implied limitations on the amending power of Parliament.

5. What is the role of the judiciary in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution?

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Limited Amending Power: The petitioner contended that the amending power of Parliament is not unlimited and is subject to inherent limitations.

2. Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution derives its authority from the people, not from Parliament. Hence, Parliament cannot alter its essential features.

3. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Fundamental Rights form the cornerstone of the Constitution and cannot be amended out of existence.

4. Judicial Review: Judicial review is a basic feature, ensuring that Parliament does not exceed its constitutional authority.

B. Respondent’s Arguments

1. Unlimited Amending Power: The Attorney General argued that under Article 368, Parliament possesses absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution.

2. Constituent Power: The amending power is a constituent power, distinct from ordinary legislative power.

3. Parliamentary Sovereignty: The will of the elected representatives, expressed through constitutional amendments, reflects the sovereign will of the people.

4. Need for Socioeconomic Reforms: In a developing country like India, socioeconomic justice requires amending existing structures, including Fundamental Rights.

 The Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered its historic judgment on April 24, 1973. The 13-judge bench, by a 7:6 majority, held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is vast but not unlimited.

Majority View

1. Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

2. However, such an amendment cannot alter or destroy the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

3. The Basic Structure Doctrine was thus propounded for the first time in Indian constitutional history.

The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, supported by Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna (partially). Justice H.R. Khanna’s concurring opinion was decisive in forming the 7–6 majority.

Minority View

The dissenting judges held that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is unlimited and includes the power to repeal or alter any part of the Constitution, including its basic features.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The Court did not give an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, but various judges identified the following essential features:

Supremacy of the Constitution

Republican and Democratic form of government

Secular character of the Constitution

Separation of powers

Federal character of the Constitution

Unity and integrity of the nation

Sovereignty of India

Judicial review

Rule of law

Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Justice Khanna famously stated that “the power of amendment does not include the power to destroy the identity of the Constitution.”

 Impact of the Judgment

The Kesavananda Bharati case had far-reaching consequences for Indian constitutional and political history.

1. Constitutional Supremacy Affirmed

The judgment established that the Constitution is supreme, and Parliament is merely its creature. This principle prevented the possibility of transforming the democratic Constitution into an authoritarian one.

2. Balance Between Flexibility and Rigidity 

While earlier judgments either allowed unlimited amendment (Shankari Prasad) or completely 

restricted it (Golaknath), Kesavananda Bharati created a middle path, balancing Parliament’s power and constitutional sanctity.

3. Strengthening Judicial Review

The judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution was reaffirmed. Any amendment that violates the basic structure can be struck down by the Court.

4. Influence on Subsequent Cases

The Basic Structure Doctrine became a cornerstone in later judgments, including:

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain⁶ (1975) – Struck down clause 4 of the 39th Amendment for violating democracy.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India⁷ (1980) – Reaffirmed the doctrine and struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu⁸ (2007) – Extended the doctrine to include laws placed under the Ninth Schedule.

5. Limiting Political Power

The decision prevented concentration of power in the hands of the ruling majority and safeguarded democratic institutions from potential constitutional manipulation.

 Criticism of the Judgment

Despite its acclaim, the judgment has faced certain criticisms:

1. Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that unelected judges curtailed the sovereignty of an elected Parliament.

2. Lack of Clarity: The Court did not clearly define the term “basic structure,” leaving its interpretation open to judicial discretion.

3. Practical Challenges: The doctrine often creates tension between Parliament and the judiciary, leading to frequent constitutional litigation.

4. Philosophical Ambiguity: Some scholars believe the doctrine lacks textual basis in the Constitution and rests solely on judicial interpretation.

However, defenders of the doctrine argue that it has preserved the constitutional identity and democratic ethos of India.

 Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment remains the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. It successfully reconciled two competing ideas — the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution. By formulating the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court ensured that while the Constitution could evolve through amendments, its essential spirit could not be destroyed.

The doctrine has stood the test of time for over five decades, guiding the judiciary in preserving constitutional values amidst political turbulence. As India continues to evolve, the Kesavananda Bharati case serves as a living reminder that the Constitution is not merely a legal document but a moral compass ensuring justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Footnotes 

1. Kesavanand Bharti V. State Of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.

2. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458.

3. Golaknath v1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.

4. Id.

5. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) Supp SCC 1

.

6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

7. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 SCC 1.