Kesavananda Bharati Judgment
Basic Structure Doctrine in Easy English
Simple, classroom-style explanation of the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case that created the basic structure doctrine and changed the story of the Indian Constitution.
Quick Summary
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) is a turning point in Indian constitutional law. The case began as a challenge by Sri Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, against land reform laws that limited the Mutt’s property. During the hearing, the real question became much bigger: Can Parliament change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
A thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments for 68 days. By a narrow majority of 7:6, the Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot change the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. This is known as the basic structure doctrine.
The judgment created a balance: Parliament remains powerful, but the Constitution’s core values, like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, democracy, secularism and judicial review, are protected from destruction.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 is unlimited, or whether there are implied limits.
- Whether Parliament can amend or take away fundamental rights, including the right to property.
- Whether the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments enlarging Parliament’s amendment power were valid.
- Whether there exists a basic structure of the Constitution that no authority can damage or destroy.
Relevant Rules & Provisions
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 368 – Procedure and power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- Part III – Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 14, 19 and 31 (property).
- Preamble – Source of core values like justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.
Key Precedent Cases
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Narrow view of fundamental rights and personal liberty.
- Sankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965) – Parliament can amend fundamental rights.
- I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights; amendment treated like ordinary law.
Facts – Timeline Story
Soon after independence, land reform and preventive detention laws were challenged in cases like A.K. Gopalan. The Court followed a narrow, article-by-article view of fundamental rights.
In Sankari Prasad, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend fundamental rights using Article 368, even if rights were reduced or diluted.
In Sajjan Singh, the Court again upheld Parliament’s wide amendment power and said that if the framers wanted limits, they would have written them clearly.
In Golak Nath, the Court changed direction and ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. Amendment was treated like ordinary law, which must respect Part III.
Kerala passed land reform laws to put ceilings on land and redistribute surplus land. These laws also affected religious institutions like the Edneer Mutt.
Sri Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt, challenged these laws. At first, the challenge focused on the right to property. Soon, the focus widened to Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution itself.
To overcome Golak Nath, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments, trying to make its amendment power almost unlimited and to protect land reform laws from challenge.
A 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian history, heard the case for 68 days. Famous counsel like Nani Palkhivala argued that some basic features of the Constitution must remain untouched.
Think of this case as the final episode of a long constitutional series, starting with A.K. Gopalan, moving through Sankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh and Golak Nath, and finally reaching Kesavananda Bharati.
Arguments – Appellant vs Respondent
Appellant – Kesavananda Bharati & Intervenors
- Land reform laws and ceilings on Mutt property violated the right to property and affected religious freedom.
- Parliament’s amendment power cannot be unlimited. There must be some core features which even Parliament cannot destroy.
- Essential features include supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, federalism, democracy and secularism.
- If Parliament can remove or rewrite any part, it could even turn India into a dictatorship through amendments, which goes against the idea of a written Constitution.
- Legendary counsel Nani Palkhivala argued that the Constitution is a “living document” with a soul. That soul is the basic structure, which must be protected.
Respondent – State of Kerala & Union of India
- Land reforms were necessary for social justice and to remove feudal landholding patterns.
- Article 368 gives Parliament a wide power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
- The democratic will of the people is expressed through Parliament. Courts should not block necessary social and economic reforms by creating implied limits.
- The 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments were valid uses of amendment power to protect pro-poor legislation.
- If amendment power is restricted, it may become impossible to adapt the Constitution to changing needs of society and development.
Overall, the case became a clash between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy.
Judgment – What the Court Finally Held
On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court delivered its historic decision. The bench was deeply divided, and the result was a close 7:6 majority. The Court tried to strike a middle path between earlier cases that gave Parliament complete freedom and Golak Nath, which had almost frozen amendment power.
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including fundamental rights.
- However, Parliament cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
- The 24th Amendment was upheld because it clarified Parliament’s amending power.
- Parts of the 25th Amendment were upheld, but provisions that tried to completely remove judicial review over certain laws were read down or struck down.
- The 29th Amendment, which placed some Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, was accepted, but subject to the basic structure test.
In simple terms: Parliament is powerful but not all-powerful. The Constitution remains the supreme document, and the Court has the duty to protect its core identity.
Ratio Decidendi – Core Legal Principle
The central legal principle (ratio) of the Kesavananda Bharati case can be broken into simple points:
- The power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide and includes changes to fundamental rights.
- This power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
- The basic structure includes essential features such as supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secularism, federalism, judicial review and separation of powers.
- The list of basic features is open-ended; future benches can identify more features as basic.
- Any amendment can be tested by the Court: if it attacks the basic structure, it is invalid, even if the procedure in Article 368 is properly followed.
Why This Case Matters Today
The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is often called the “soul of the Constitution” case. It protects India from extreme changes that could destroy democracy, even if a temporary majority in Parliament wishes so.
After this judgment, many later cases relied on the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that were seen as dangerous, such as parts of the 42nd Amendment during and after the Emergency. This ensures that the Constitution remains stable but also flexible.
For students, activists and citizens, the case shows how the judiciary can act as a constitutional guardian. It keeps a check on any attempt to change the very character of the Indian state.
Key Takeaways for Students
- 1. Parliament can amend, but cannot destroy, the Constitution.
- 2. Basic structure doctrine is judge-made, but now firmly accepted.
- 3. The case is a bridge between earlier amendment cases and later ones like Minerva Mills.
- 4. The decision was very close (7:6), showing deep disagreement among judges.
- 5. The Preamble plays an important role in identifying basic features.
- 6. Land reforms triggered the case, but the real fight was over amendment power.
- 7. The case is frequently asked in exams – always connect it to Article 368 and basic structure.
- 8. It is also central to debates on judicial review vs parliamentary supremacy.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Memory Hook
Mnemonic for Basic Structure in this Case – B-R-I-D-G-E
- B – Balance between Parliament and Constitution.
- R – Rule of law and judicial review stay safe.
- I – Identity of the Constitution cannot be changed.
- D – Democracy and elections must remain real.
- G – Guardianship by the Supreme Court.
- E – Essential features like federalism and secularism are protected.
3-Step Hook to Recall the Story
- Step 1 – Build-up: Remember the chain Gopalan → Sankari Prasad → Sajjan Singh → Golak Nath. These cases keep fighting over how far amendments can go.
- Step 2 – Turning Point: A land reform dispute by a religious head (Kesavananda) turns into a full debate on the limits of Parliament’s power under Article 368.
- Step 3 – New Rule: The Court says “Yes to amendments, No to destroying the basic structure” – and that becomes the shield for the Constitution.
IRAC Outline – Exam-Friendly Format
I – Issue
Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited and extends to changing fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.
R – Rule
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. However, this power is subject to implied limitations: amendments cannot damage or destroy the basic structure, which includes supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers and judicial review.
A – Application
The Court examined the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments and the background of earlier cases. It accepted that Parliament needs flexibility to amend, but noted that total power could destroy the Constitution itself. Therefore, it created the basic structure test: amendments are valid only if they do not harm core features.
C – Conclusion
Parliament can amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter its basic structure. The 24th Amendment was upheld, parts of the 25th were modified, and the 29th was made subject to basic structure review. The basic structure doctrine became the controlling test for all future amendments.
Glossary – Simple Words for Tough Terms
| Term | Easy Meaning |
|---|---|
| Basic Structure | The core features of the Constitution that cannot be destroyed, even by an amendment. |
| Article 368 | The article that tells us how the Constitution can be changed and who can change it. |
| Judicial Review | The power of courts to check whether laws and amendments follow the Constitution or not. |
| Ninth Schedule | A list in the Constitution where some laws are placed to give them extra protection from challenge. |
| Land Reforms | Laws that fix a maximum limit on land and try to give land to poor or landless people. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The main legal reason and principle on which the court’s decision is based. |
FAQs – Student-Friendly Doubts
Final Classroom Note
When you write about the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, always connect three things together: Article 368 (amendment power), Part III (fundamental rights) and the Preamble (basic values). Show how the Court used these tools to protect the Constitution’s identity.
If you remember only one line, remember this: “Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic structure.”
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now