The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the most significant judgments in the history of the Indian Constitution. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India, in a 7-6 majority decision, ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its “basic structure.” This judgment preserved the essence of the Constitution and ensured that fundamental rights and democracy remain intact.

Background of the Case –

The case originated when Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt (a Hindu monastery) in Kerala, filed a petition against the Kerala government in 1970. The government, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, sought to acquire Mutt’s land. Bharati challenged this law, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property), and Article 25 (Right to Practice Religion) of the Indian Constitution.

While the case began as a dispute over property rights, it evolved into a broader constitutional battle about Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution—a question that had been debated in earlier cases.

Previous Landmark Cases on Constitutional Amendments-
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
• The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
• Reaffirmed the decision in Shankari Prasad, allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.
3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
• Overturned previous judgments and held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament, as they are “transcendental” and beyond legislative control.
• Introduced the doctrine of Prospective Overruling, meaning the ruling would apply to future amendments only.
4. 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments (1971-72)
• In response to Golaknath, the government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, passed these amendments.
• The 24th Amendment gave Parliament unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• The 25th Amendment restricted judicial review of laws related to Directive Principles of State Policy.

These amendments led to the challenge in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Issues Before the Supreme Court–
1. Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
2. Does Article 368 grant unlimited power to Parliament to amend the Constitution?
3. Is there any limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?
4. Are the 24th and 25th Amendments valid?

Arguments by the Petitioners (Kesavananda Bharati & Others)–
• Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute; it is subject to judicial review.
• The Golaknath case correctly stated that Fundamental Rights are beyond parliamentary control.
• The 24th and 25th Amendments violated the principles of democracy and individual freedom.
• The Constitution is based on certain core principles (separation of powers, federalism, democracy, rule of law, etc.) that cannot be altered.

Arguments by the Government (Defending the Amendments)–
• Parliament represents the will of the people, and it must have the power to amend the Constitution for the welfare of citizens.
• The Constitution itself allows amendments under Article 368, so there should be no restrictions on Parliament’s power.
• Fundamental Rights should not be above amendments, especially when they conflict with Directive Principles of State Policy (which aim at socio-economic justice).
• The decision in Golaknath was incorrect and should be overturned.

The Verdict (April 24, 1973)–

The case was heard by a 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian history. The judgment was split 7-6, with the majority holding that:
• Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its basic structure.
• Fundamental Rights can be amended, but not to the extent that they destroy essential features of the Constitution.
• The 24th Amendment was upheld, allowing Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights.
• The 25th Amendment was partly upheld—it limited property rights but was subject to judicial review.

This established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which remains a guiding principle in constitutional law.

What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?–

The Basic Structure Doctrine states that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited. Certain fundamental principles form the “basic structure” of the Constitution, which cannot be altered or destroyed. While the Supreme Court did not define an exhaustive list, it identified key elements:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Sovereign, Democratic, and Republic Nature of India
3. Secular Character of the Constitution
4. Separation of Powers (between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary)
5. Judicial Review
6. Federalism
7. Unity and Integrity of India
8. Parliamentary System of Government
9. Freedom and Dignity of the Individual
10. Rule of Law

Future cases expanded this list based on specific challenges to constitutional amendments.

Impact of the Judgment–

1. Limiting Parliamentary Power
   • Parliament could no longer amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic principles.
   • This prevented authoritarian changes, ensuring constitutional stability.
2. Strengthening Judicial Review
   • The judiciary became the guardian of the Constitution, with the power to strike down amendments that violate its basic structure.
3. Conflict with the Government (Emergency of 1975)
   • Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was unhappy with the ruling. In response, she tried to undermine the judiciary.
   • Justice A.N. Ray was controversially appointed Chief Justice, bypassing three senior judges.
   • This conflict contributed to the Emergency (1975-77), during which civil liberties were suspended.
4. Later Constitutional Amendments and Cases
   • 42nd Amendment (1976): Indira Gandhi’s government attempted to weaken the Basic Structure Doctrine by declaring all amendments beyond judicial review.
   • Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment.
   • Waman Rao Case (1981): It clarified that laws enacted before Kesavananda Bharati remain valid, but future amendments would be tested against the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Conclusion–

The Kesavananda Bharati case was a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It ensured that while Parliament has wide amending powers, it cannot destroy the fundamental identity of the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine remains a powerful tool to prevent authoritarianism and uphold democracy, justice, and individual freedoms in India.

The case reaffirmed the balance of power between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary, securing the long-term stability of India’s constitutional democracy.