Case Law Analysis: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

Case Law Analysis: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most significant rulings in the history of the Indian judiciary. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine which limits the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution of India. This landmark judgment has shaped the relationship between the Constitution, the Parliament, and the Judiciary.

Background of the Case

In 1970, Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu mutt in Kerala, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of his religious property. The case, initially focused on property rights, expanded into a broader constitutional question: Can the Parliament amend any part of the Constitution without limits, or are there certain parts that form the “basic structure” of the Constitution that cannot be altered?

This question arose because of the conflict between Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 and the Judiciary’s power to review amendments.

The Amendments in Question

At the time, two amendments passed by the Parliament were under scrutiny:

1. The 24th Amendment (1971), which asserted Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
2. The 25th Amendment (1972), which gave the government power to restrict property rights for social welfare objectives and limited judicial review over such legislation.

These amendments were a direct response to earlier Supreme Court rulings, including the Golaknath case (1967), where the Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

In a landmark 7-6 majority judgment on April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the 24th and 25th Amendments but with crucial restrictions. The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

This doctrine limits the amending power of Parliament and protects the fundamental elements of the Constitution from being altered. The concept of “basic structure” was not exhaustively defined by the Court, but certain aspects were highlighted, including:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Democratic and secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary
• Judicial Review

Significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine ensures that the core principles of the Indian Constitution remain untouched even if Parliament attempts to amend other parts of it. This doctrine acts as a safeguard against any potential abuse of constitutional amendments that could undermine the democratic fabric of India.

This ruling has been applied in several subsequent cases where constitutional amendments were challenged. For example:

• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court struck down amendments that tried to curtail judicial review and the balance of power between the Parliament and Judiciary.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment, ruling that Parliament could not override the basic structure of free and fair elections.

Aftermath and Impact

The Kesavananda Bharati case was not just a judicial decision; it was a defining moment in Indian constitutional law. It established the Judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and placed a check on Parliament’s power. The ruling continues to play a pivotal role in constitutional interpretation and the preservation of India’s democratic principles.

Over the years, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment has become a cornerstone for constitutional lawyers, students, and scholars. It also serves as a reference in global constitutional discourse for jurisdictions exploring the limits of parliamentary supremacy.

Key Points of the Case

• Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
• Decided On: April 24, 1973
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Largest ever bench of 13 judges
• Citation: 1973 (4) SCC 225, AIR 1973 SC 1461

Relevant Articles and Amendments

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies
• Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
• 24th Amendment: Indian Kanoon on 24th Amendment
• 25th Amendment: Details on 25th Amendment

Further Reading and Related Judgments

• Golaknath Case (1967): Analysis on iPleaders
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): Case Details on SCC Online
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Case Brief on Bar & Bench

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a defining moment in India’s constitutional history. It established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and that certain core elements must remain intact to preserve democracy, rule of law, and the integrity of the Indian legal framework. The case continues to serve as a vital reference for constitutional amendments and judicial reviews, ensuring a balance of power between the Judiciary and the Legislature.

The case law is a classic example of how the Indian judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding the fundamental rights and principles of the Constitution, even against attempts by Parliament to alter them.

---

🎓✨ Law Students, Your Future is Calling!

Why settle for ordinary when you can be extraordinary? Join a powerful network of 5000+ law students who are already grabbing top internships, job offers, and winning law competitions.

🔔 Stay in the Loop with instant updates tailored just for you—be the first to know about every opportunity that matters!

Ready to take the leap?

[WhatsApp]( | [Telegram] | [LinkedIn]

Don’t just follow the path—pave it. Join us today and start making your mark! 🚀