Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

he Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case stands as a constitutional milestone in Indian legal history. Decided by the largest-ever bench of thirteen judges of the Supreme Court, it fundamentally redefined the balance between the powers of Parliament and the judiciary. The case gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial innovation that limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, ensuring the preservation of its essential features.

Background and Context

After independence, the Indian government undertook extensive land reform programmes to redistribute land and eliminate feudal ownership. These reforms, though necessary for achieving Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)—especially Article 39(b) and (c) concerning equitable distribution of resources—often clashed with Fundamental Rights, notably the Right to Property (then under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31).
Initially, the judiciary sided with property owners, striking down land reform laws as unconstitutional. To overcome these judicial obstacles, the Parliament passed a series of amendments:

• The First Amendment (1951) introduced Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule, protecting specific laws from judicial review.
• The Seventeenth Amendment (1964) added further land reform acts to the Ninth Schedule.
• Following the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) decision—which held that Fundamental Rights were beyond amendment—Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to restore its amending powers.

This escalating conflict between Parliament’s will and the judiciary’s guardianship of the Constitution led to the filing of the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Facts of the Case

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt (Edneer Mutt) in Kerala, challenged certain provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1963), which sought to restrict the management and ownership of the mutt’s property. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the Act violated his Fundamental Rights—particularly the right to manage religious property under Article 26 and the right to property under Article 19(1)(f).
While the case was pending, the government enacted several constitutional amendments:

• The 24th Amendment (1971), restoring Parliament’s authority to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• The 25th Amendment (1971), introducing Article 31C, which insulated certain laws implementing DPSPs from judicial review.
• The 29th Amendment (1972), adding the Kerala Land Reform Acts to the Ninth Schedule.

Kesavananda Bharati amended his petition to challenge these constitutional amendments themselves.

Issues Before the Court

The case raised several profound constitutional questions:

1. Does Article 368 confer upon Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution?
2. Can Parliament alter or abrogate Fundamental Rights and the basic features of the Constitution?
3. Is there a distinction between ordinary legislative power and constituent power?
4. Are there implied limitations on Parliament’s power of amendment?

Composition of the Bench

The case was heard by a thirteen-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history. The bench included Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and twelve other justices, such as H.R. Khanna, A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and others. The hearings lasted over five months, making it one of the lengthiest cases ever argued before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati and others):

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is limited and cannot alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
• The Constitution is not merely a political document but a charter guaranteeing rights that cannot be destroyed even by constitutional amendment.
• There exist implied limitations on the amending power to preserve the Constitution’s identity and core principles.

For the Respondent (Government of India):

• Parliament represents the sovereign will of the people and therefore possesses unrestricted constituent power to amend any provision, including Fundamental Rights.
• The amending power under Article 368 is not subject to judicial review.
• Amendments are necessary to adapt the Constitution to changing socio-economic realities.

The Judgement

Delivered on 24 April 1973, the Court’s decision was a narrow 7–6 majority verdict. It struck a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.
The majority opinion (Chief Justice Sikri, Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy, and Khanna) held that:

• Article 368 confers both the power and procedure to amend the Constitution.
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• However, it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or the essential features that form the Constitution’s identity.
• The 24th Amendment was valid as it clarified the amending procedure.
• The 25th Amendment was valid in part; while Article 31C was upheld, the provision barring judicial review was struck down.
• The 29th Amendment was also upheld, but subject to the doctrine that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could still be reviewed if they damaged the basic structure.

The minority opinion (led by Justice A.N. Ray) held that Parliament’s amending power was absolute and that no limitation could be read into Article 368.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion proved decisive. He agreed that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution but could not change its essential features. His reasoning tilted the verdict towards the creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The judgement did not provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic structure, but various judges suggested elements that could not be amended. These included:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Rule of law and judicial review
• Democratic and republican form of government
• Secularism
• Federalism
• Separation of powers
• Unity and integrity of India
• Sovereignty of the nation
• Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

This doctrine became a permanent feature of Indian constitutional law, preventing Parliament from altering the Constitution’s fundamental identity.

Immediate Aftermath

The Kesavananda Bharati decision curtailed Parliament’s ability to alter the Constitution unrestrainedly. The government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, viewed the verdict as an obstacle to its reformist agenda. In apparent retaliation, the government superseded three senior judges—Shelat, Hegde, and Grover—who had ruled against it, appointing Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice in 1973. This move was widely seen as a blow to judicial independence.
The decision was soon tested in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, where the Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which attempted to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review.

Long-Term Significance

The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a cornerstone of constitutional law in India. Its long-term significance can be summarised as follows:

• It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that no amendment can destroy the core values of the Constitution.
• It upheld the supremacy of the Constitution over transient parliamentary majorities.
• It preserved the independence of the judiciary and reinforced the role of judicial review.
• It introduced the concept of constitutional continuity, balancing flexibility with stability.
• It has since been reaffirmed in multiple rulings such as Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1981), S.R. Bommai (1994), and I.R. Coelho (2007).

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati judgement marks the triumph of constitutional supremacy over legislative absolutism. It prevented potential authoritarian misuse of the amendment process and safeguarded India’s democratic framework. Through this case, the Supreme Court emerged as the guardian of the Constitution’s soul, ensuring that the foundational ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity remain inviolable for all future generations.