CASE ANALYSIS – KESAVANANDA BHARATI v. STATE OF KERALA (1973)

CITATION	AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225
DATE	24 APRIL, 1973
COURT NAME	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT/ PETITIONER	KESAVANANDA BHARATI
DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT	STATE OF KERALA
JUDGES	1. CHIEF JUSTICE S. M. SIKRI2. JUSTICE J. M. SHELAT3. JUSTICE K. S. HEGDE4. JUSTICE A. N. GROVER5. JUSTICE P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY6. JUSTICE D. G. PALEKAR7. JUSTICE H. R. KHANNA8. JUSTICE K. K. MATHEW9. JUSTICE M. H. BEG10. JUSTICE S. N. DWIVEDI11. JUSTICE Y. V. CHANDRACHUD12. JUSTICE A. N. RAY13. JUSTICE I. D. DUA

INTRODUCTION 

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is considered a landmark in the evolution of India’s constitutional law. Originally filed by Kesavananda Bharati to challenge Kerala’s land reform laws, the scope of the case broadened to include a review of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments. To address the significant constitutional questions raised, a special bench of 13 judges, the largest in Indian legal history, was convened. The key issue was whether Parliament had the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. In a closely split verdict of 7 to 6, the Court concluded that while Parliament has the power to make constitutional amendments, it cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This decision introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, a principle that protects core constitutional values like democracy, rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

2. He challenged the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969 and 1971, which imposed ceilings on land holdings and affected the Mutt’s religious property.

3.  The petitioner claimed that his Fundamental Rights were violated, particularly Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31 of the Constitution.

4. He prayed for the Act to be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void, and requested the Court to issue appropriate directions restraining the state from acquiring Mutt property.

5. While the petition was pending, Parliament enacted three major constitutional amendments, the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments aimed at strengthening the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

6.  The 24th Amendment gave Parliament explicit power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

7. The 29th Amendment added the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1969 and 1971 to the Ninth Schedule, thus protecting them from judicial review under Article 31B.

8. Kesavananda Bharati then amended his petition to challenge not just the land laws but also the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.

9. The core issue became whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including provisions that form its essential features.

10. Due to the gravity of the constitutional questions involved, a special 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history, was constituted to hear the matter.

11. The outcome of the case would determine the future of Indian democracy, constitutional supremacy, and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Parliament’s amending power.

ISSUES 

1. Whether Parliament has unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?

2. Whether there are implied limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?

3. Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, which gave Parliament power to amend Fundamental Rights, is valid?

4. Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, which inserted Article 31C giving primacy to Directive Principles, is valid and constitutional?

5. Whether the 29th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972, which placed certain Kerala Land Reforms Acts in the Ninth Schedule, is valid and beyond judicial review?

6.  Whether inserting laws into the Ninth Schedule through constitutional amendment can be challenged if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution?

7.  Whether the Preamble forms part of the Constitution and if it can be amended under Article 368?

JUDGEMENT 

1. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament holds extensive authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368   including changes to Fundamental Rights this authority is not absolute. The Court emphasized that certain implicit limits exist, and any amendment that dismantles or harms the “basic structure” of the Constitution is impermissible. This judgment marked the first formal recognition and adoption of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian constitutional law.

2. The core outcome of this judgment was the formulation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, according to which certain fundamental features of the Constitution though not explicitly mentioned are so essential to its identity that they cannot be abrogated or destroyed, even by constitutional amendment. While the Court did not provide a final list of what constitutes the “basic structure,” it gave examples such as the supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review. This doctrine was meant to act as a safeguard against authoritarian or anti-democratic amendments.

3. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, which amended Article 368 and explicitly gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was held valid. The Court ruled that this amendment was only clarificatory and did not violate the basic structure, as long as Parliament’s power was exercised within the limits imposed by the doctrine.

4. The 25th Amendment Act, which inserted Article 31C giving priority to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights in Articles 14 and 19, was partially upheld. The first part of Article 31C (protecting laws that implement certain Directive Principles) was held constitutional. However, the second part of Article 31C, which excluded such laws from judicial review, was struck down. The Court held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure, and Parliament cannot take it away under any circumstances.

5. The 29th Amendment Act, which added two Kerala Land Reform Amendment Acts to the Ninth Schedule, was held valid. However, the Court clarified that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after this judgment (i.e., after 24 April 1973) would be open to judicial review. If such laws violated the basic structure, the Court could strike them down, even if they were part of the Ninth Schedule. This meant that Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule do not offer blanket protection from constitutional scrutiny.

6.  The Court in Kesavananda Bharati clarified that Parliament does have the power to amend Fundamental Rights, but it cannot do so in a way that alters or destroys the essential features of the Constitution.

7.  Justice H. R. Khanna’s unique position agreeing partly with the majority and partly with the minority tilted the balance in favour of the Basic Structure Doctrine, making his judgment the turning point of the entire case.

8. The judgment protected constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy. It established that no authority, including Parliament, can rewrite the Constitution’s fundamental character, even with a special majority. This ensured that India remains a democratic republic governed by rule of law, and that Fundamental Rights remain justiciable and protected from complete annihilation.

9. The Kesavananda Bharati case has had a lasting impact on Indian constitutional law. The Basic Structure Doctrine has been repeatedly upheld and applied in later landmark cases such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), and I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). It  serves as a check against legislative overreach and a guardian of the spirit of the Constitution.

REASONING

1. The Court reasoned that the power to “amend” under Article 368 cannot be interpreted as the power to “repeal,” “abrogate,” or “destroy” the Constitution. The judges held that “amendment” must be understood as bringing about changes without altering the basic identity of the Constitution. Therefore, any amendment that damages or destroys essential constitutional principles cannot be valid.

2. The Court emphasized that the Constitution is a permanent and foundational legal document, not one that can be reshaped at will by Parliament, even with a two-thirds majority. While Parliament has been granted wide amending powers, these powers must respect the supremacy of the Constitution. Otherwise, democracy itself could be undermined by a temporary parliamentary majority.

3. The judgment highlighted that the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary is a part of the basic structure. If Parliament were allowed to amend any part of the Constitution without restriction, it could potentially remove judicial review, dissolve state governments, or even abolish elections, which would go against the principle of limited government and rule of law.

4. The reasoning also relied on the Preamble, which reflects the fundamental values and philosophy of the Constitution sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Though not enforceable in itself, the Preamble was interpreted as a guiding light and part of the basic structure, implying that any amendment that violates these values would be unconstitutional.

5. The Court reasoned that judicial review is part of the basic structure. Removing this power, even by constitutional amendment, would destroy the checks and balances essential to a constitutional democracy. Hence, the part of the 25th Amendment that attempted to exclude judicial scrutiny was struck down.

6. While the Court respected the importance of Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), it held that they must be harmonized with Fundamental Rights (Part III). The judgment rejected the idea that Parliament could give unchecked primacy to Directive Principles in a way that would eliminate citizens’ rights altogether. This reasoning led to the partial invalidation of Article 31C (25th Amendment

7. The Court introduced the idea of implied limitations even though the Constitution does not explicitly restrict Parliament’s amending power, certain limitations are inherent in the constitutional scheme itself. The basic structure doctrine is one such implied limitation. Parliament, though powerful, is not supreme and cannot alter the core architecture of the Constitution.

8. Although Article 368 confers constituent power (not merely legislative power) on Parliament, the Court reasoned that even a constituent power must function within constitutional boundaries. The power to amend does not give Parliament the authority to rewrite the Constitution entirely or convert it into a different political or legal system.

9. The judges were deeply aware of the possibility of constitutional abuse. They reasoned that if unlimited amendment power was allowed, a government could convert democracy into dictatorship through a legal process, bypassing the will of the people. The Basic Structure Doctrine was created as a defensive tool to preserve democracy and protect the Constitution from such dangers.

10. Finally, the Court stressed that its reasoning was not based on political ideology, but on constitutional morality and legal interpretation. The judges were not obstructing social progress or parliamentary sovereignty but were instead ensuring that any progress remained anchored in constitutional values.

CONCLUSION 

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment stands as a constitutional milestone that firmly established the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indian law. It drew a critical balance between Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the Constitution’s enduring character. By holding that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure, the Supreme Court ensured that core values like democracy, rule of law, judicial review, secularism, and Fundamental Rights remain beyond the reach of political majorities. This case redefined Indian constitutionalism by making it clear that the Constitution is supreme not Parliament, and that no amendment can transform its identity. It saved India from potential authoritarian misuse of power and became a guardian of constitutional morality and democratic principles. Decided by a narrow 7:6 majority, the case also symbolized the strength of the judiciary in upholding the spirit of the Constitution against encroachments. Even after five decades, this judgment continues to be cited and respected in legal and academic discourse, reinforcing its position as the bedrock of constitutional democracy in India.

REFERENCE 

1.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
2. All India Reporter 1973 Supreme Court 1461; (1973) Volume 4 Supreme Court Case 225

Written by Abinaya Raja; an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.