Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Basic Structure Landmark

The Kesavananda Bharati case is universally regarded as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law. Decided by a 13-judge bench—the largest in the history of the Supreme Court of India—it established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

The case arose against the backdrop of growing tensions between parliamentary supremacy and judicial review, following judgments such as Golaknath (1967) which had restricted Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. Kesavananda Bharati clarified the balance between constitutional flexibility and permanence, ensuring the Constitution remained a living document without sacrificing its core principles.

Historical Background

• Land Reforms:
  • Kerala’s Land Reforms Act sought to impose restrictions on the property rights of religious institutions, including the Edneer Mutt headed by Kesavananda Bharati.
  • Bharati challenged the legislation, arguing that it violated his constitutional right to property (Article 31, pre-44th Amendment).
• Judicial-Political Context:
  • After Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Parliament sought to expand its amending power through the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.
  • The conflict was whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights and alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

Constitutional Issues

1. Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
2. Whether Fundamental Rights can be abrogated or restricted by constitutional amendments.
3. The scope of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Judgment

• Delivered on 24 April 1973, by a narrow 7–6 majority.
• Key holdings:

1. Parliament’s Amending Power:
   • Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. Limitations – Basic Structure Doctrine:
   • Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution, which includes:
     • Supremacy of the Constitution
     • Republican and democratic form of government
     • Secularism
     • Separation of powers
     • Federalism
     • Judicial review
     • Fundamental Rights

3. Judicial Review:
   • Courts retain power to invalidate amendments that violate the basic structure, ensuring the Constitution’s core values remain intact.

• Significance of the 7–6 Split:

• • The narrow majority reflected ideological tensions between those favoring parliamentary supremacy and those defending judicial oversight.
  • Justice H.R. Khanna, in a famous dissent-turned-majority reasoning, emphasized that democracy and the rule of law cannot be sacrificed for transient parliamentary majorities.

Doctrinal Importance

1. Foundation of Basic Structure Doctrine:
   • Limits parliamentary amending power, preventing any constitutional change that destroys essential features.
2. Safeguarding Democracy:
   • Protects Fundamental Rights, federalism, secularism, and judicial review.
3. Judicial Supremacy in Safeguarding Constitution:
   • Establishes the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, capable of striking down unconstitutional amendments.

Judicial Impact

• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Applied basic structure to strike down 39th Amendment provisions protecting the Prime Minister.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reinforced that amendments violating the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are unconstitutional.
• Subsequent Doctrine Development:
  • The basic structure has evolved to include free and fair elections, judicial independence, secularism, and parliamentary democracy as essential pillars.

Comparative Perspective

• United States: Judicial review exists, but Congress can amend the Constitution with supermajority; no “basic structure” limitation.
• United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute; courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.
• India: Unique in limiting parliamentary amending power through judicial doctrine, balancing flexibility with constitutional permanence.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It ensures that while the Constitution is amendable and adaptable to socio-political needs, its essential features remain inviolable. The case struck a delicate balance between democratic evolution and constitutional sanctity, establishing the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of India’s constitutional identity.

The case remains a guiding principle for all constitutional amendments, preserving the vision of the framers and protecting India from any attempt to undermine democracy, secularism, federalism, or fundamental rights.