Introduction
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is widely regarded as the most significant constitutional decision in Indian legal history, as it laid down the “basic structure doctrine” and placed an implied limitation on Parliament’s amending power under the Constitution. The case arose at a time when Parliament had passed several constitutional amendments to curtail fundamental rights and dilute judicial review, thereby triggering a constitutional crisis over the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s response in this case fundamentally reshaped the understanding of constitutional supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty in India.
Case Background
The petitioner, His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kasaragod, Kerala. The Kerala government enacted the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which imposed restrictions on the management, transfer, and ownership of land held by religious institutions. Bharati challenged the Act, arguing that it infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious property), and 31 (right to property, then a fundamental right).
At the same time, the Union Government had introduced the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments to expand Parliament’s amending power and to shield certain socioeconomic legislation from judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court clubbed these challenges into a single reference and constituted a 13judge Constitution Bench, the largest ever assembled in India, to decide the scope of Article 368 and the limits of constitutional amendment.
Sections / Provisions Applied
The Court examined several constitutional provisions, including:
Article 13(2): Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are void.
Article 31: Right to property (then a fundamental right).
Article 31C: Inserted by the 25th Amendment, it sought to immunise laws giving effect to Directive Principles under Articles 39 ( b ) and 39 ( c ) from judicial review on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Article 368: Procedure and scope of constitutional amendment.
Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 31: Fundamental rights allegedly infringed by the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the constitutional amendments.
The central legal question was whether Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is unlimited, or whether it is subject to implied limitations so as not to destroy the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
Key Issues
The Court framed the following principal issues:
Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368.
Whether Parliament can abrogate or destroy the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution through amendment.
Whether Article 31C, as amended by the 25th Amendment, is constitutionally valid.
Whether the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the related constitutional amendments violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, and 31.
Detailed Arguments from Both Sides
Petitioner’s Arguments (Kesavananda Bharati and others)
Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute; it cannot be used to destroy the identity or basic structure of the Constitution, such as democracy, rule of law, judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights.
The 24th and 25th Amendments sought to remove judicial review over constitutional amendments and to make Parliament a “sovereign” body above the Constitution, thereby undermining the supremacy of the Constitution and the separation of powers.
The Kerala Land Reforms Act infringed Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion and right to manage religious property) and Article 31 (right to property), and therefore violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Kerala and Union of India)
Parliament, as the sovereign representative of the people, has plenary power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368.
The 24th Amendment merely clarified that Parliament could amend any provision, including fundamental rights, and that such amendments could not be questioned in court.
The 25th Amendment was enacted to give effect to Directive Principles under Articles 39 ( b ) and 39 ( c ) and to promote social and economic justice, which should not be fettered by judicial review.
The Kerala Land Reforms Act was a socialwelfare measure aimed at redistributing land and preventing concentration of property, and thus fell within the permissible limits of police power and reasonable restrictions in the public interest.
Judgement
The 13 judge Bench delivered eleven separate opinions, but a majority view (7:6) emerged that established the basic structure doctrine. The key holdings were:
Parliament’s amending power is not unlimited:
While Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy or abrogate the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
The “basic structure” includes features such as:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secular character
Federal character
Separation of powers
Rule of law
Judicial review
Fundamental rights as part of the constitutional framework.
Validity of the constitutional amendments:
The 24th Amendment was held valid insofar as it clarified Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, but invalid to the extent that it sought to oust judicial review over constitutional amendments.
Article 31C, as amended by the 25th Amendment, was partially struck down:
The part immunising laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from judicial review on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, and 31 was held unconstitutional.
The Court retained Parliament’s power to give effect to Directive Principles, but subject to judicial review.
Kerala Land Reforms Act:
The Court upheld the validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in the facts of the case, holding that the restrictions on the mutt’s property were reasonable, in the public interest, and did not destroy the mutt’s religious character or its ability to function.
At the same time, the Court affirmed the principle of basic structure as a limit on all future constitutional amendments.
Significance of the Judgement
Basic structure doctrine: The judgment introduced the “basic structure doctrine”, which has since become the bedrock of Indian constitutional law. It ensures that no Parliament can convert India into a totalitarian or oneparty state by amending away core democratic values.
Limit on parliamentary sovereignty: The decision established that Parliament cannot destroy the core identity of the Constitution, even by constitutional amendment, thereby preserving constitutional supremacy over transient majoritarian will.
Judicial review strengthened: The Court reestablished judicial review as an essential feature of the Constitution, even over constitutional amendments, and has since invoked the doctrine to strike down amendments that threaten core constitutional values (for example, aspects of the 42nd and 39th Amendments in later cases such as Minerva Mills and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain).
Balance between rights and socioeconomic reforms: The judgment allowed Parliament to pursue land reforms and other socioeconomic legislation, but only within the framework of the Constitution’s basic structure, thus reconciling social justice with constitutional safeguards.
Evaluation of the Judgement
Strengths
Protection of constitutional democracy: The basic structure doctrine acts as a safeguard against majoritarian overreach, preventing Parliament from amending away fundamental rights, federalism, or democratic institutions.
Pragmatic balance: The Court struck a pragmatic balance between popular sovereignty (Parliament’s will) and constitutional supremacy (judicial guardianship), ensuring that socioeconomic reforms could proceed without dismantling the Constitution’s core identity.
Doctrinal foundation: The decision laid the foundation for later landmark cases such as Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which further refined and reinforced the basic structure doctrine.
Criticisms
Vagueness of “basic structure”: The term “basic structure” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and is not exhaustively defined, leading some scholars to argue that it is judgemade, vague, and openended.
Judicial overreach: Critics contend that the Court, in effect, usurped a legislative function by imposing an extraconstitutional limitation on Parliament’s amending power, thereby concentrating significant power in an unelected judiciary.
Uncertainty in application: Because the list of basic features is evolving and casespecific, it creates doctrinal uncertainty for lawmakers, litigants, and lower courts, as the precise boundaries of the doctrine remain fluid.
Despite these critiques, most constitutional scholars regard Kesavananda Bharati as a necessary safeguard against authoritarian constitutional engineering and as a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy.
Conclusion
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) redefined the nature of constitutional amendment in India by holding that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is subject to the basic structure doctrine. The case ensured that the core identity of the Constitution—its democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights, separation of powers, and federalism—remains beyond the reach of any transient parliamentary majority. By affirming judicial review as an essential feature and by limiting Parliament’s amending power, the judgment has served as the most influential constitutional precedent in Indian legal history, shaping the trajectory of constitutional jurisprudence for decades to come.