Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

CASE_TITLE: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Slug: kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-1973-4-scc-225

PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

This case fixed the boundary for Parliament’s amending power. The Supreme Court said: Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot damage its Basic Structure. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment, trimmed parts of the 25th, and settled the debate that began after Golaknath.

• Is the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) constitutionally valid?
• Is the 25th Constitutional Amendment (1972) constitutionally valid?
• How far can Parliament go while using Article 368 to amend the Constitution?

• Amending Power: Broad and flexible. Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution.
• Basic Structure Limit: No amendment can destroy or damage the Constitution’s Basic Structure.

By a narrow 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution widely, but not in a way that harms its Basic Structure. The Court:

• Upheld the 24th Amendment completely.
• Modified the 25th Amendment: the first part stood with limits; the second part was struck down.
• Clarified that Golaknath was partly overruled: Fundamental Rights may be amended, but not beyond the Basic Structure limit.

Majority: S.M. Sikri CJI, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, B.K. Mukherjea, P. Jagmohan Reddy & H.R. Khanna, JJ. • Minority: A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi & Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

1. Scope: Article 368 lets Parliament amend the Constitution, including rights.
2. Limit: Amendments cannot damage the Constitution’s Basic Structure.
3. Result: 24th valid; 25th partly valid—courts retain power to review “amount” so it is not unreasonable.

The case protects the Constitution from extreme changes. It balances democratic will (amendments) with constitutional identity (basic structure). This is why it is called the “case of the century.”

• Parliament’s amending power is wide but not absolute.
• Basic Structure acts as a safety wall against destructive changes.
• 24th Amendment: fully valid; 25th: partly trimmed.
• Court did not give a fixed list of “basic features”; it evolves through cases.

Mnemonic: “BASIC” — Bench split 7:6, Amend wide, Structure safe, Identify case by case, Cut 25th partly.

1. Spot: Amendment vs Constitution’s core.
2. Test: Does it hurt the Basic Structure?
3. Decide: If yes, it fails even under Article 368.

Issue

How far can Parliament amend the Constitution? Are the 24th and 25th Amendments valid?

Rule

Article 368 permits wide amendments; no amendment may harm the Basic Structure.

Application

Amendments aiming at social goals are valid if they respect the Constitution’s core identity. Judicial review ensures “amount” in takings is not unfair.

Conclusion

24th upheld; 25th partly upheld; Basic Structure Doctrine governs all future amendments.

Basic Structure

Foundational features that give the Constitution its identity; cannot be damaged by amendments.

Article 368

Provision that lays down Parliament’s amending process and power.

Judicial Review

Court’s power to check if laws or amendments violate constitutional limits.