Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
– Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine
Background of the Case
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which imposed restrictions on property rights.
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court:
- Parliament had enacted the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 to overturn Golak Nath
- The 25th Amendment Act, 1971 further curtailed the Right to Property
- The 29th Amendment Act, 1971 placed land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule
Thus, the case became a direct test of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
- Are there any inherent limitations on Parliament’s amending power?
- What is the meaning and scope of “constituent power” under Article 368?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
A 13-judge Constitutional Bench, the largest ever constituted, delivered a deeply reasoned and historic verdict.
(a) Parliament Can Amend Fundamental Rights
The Court overruled Golak Nath (1967) and held that:
- Parliament has constituent power under Article 368
- It can amend any or all provisions of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights
Thus, amendability was restored.
(b) But Parliament Cannot Alter the Basic Structure
At the same time, the Court laid down a constitutional limitation:
Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
This became known as the Doctrine of Basic Structure.
In simple terms:
- The form of the Constitution can be changed
- The identity of the Constitution cannot be destroyed
Validity of Constitutional Amendments
(a) 24th Amendment Act, 1971 – Upheld
The Court upheld:
- Article 13(4) → Constitutional amendments not “law” under Article 13
- Article 368(3) → Article 13 not applicable to amendments
Thus, Parliament’s constituent power was constitutionally recognised.
(b) 25th Amendment Act, 1971 – Partially Valid
- Sections 2(a) and 2(b) → Held valid
- Section 3:
- First part → Valid
- Second part → Invalid, as it excluded judicial review (a basic structure element)
This was crucial because judicial review was recognised as part of the basic structure.
(c) 29th Amendment Act, 1971 – Validated
The Court upheld the amendment that placed certain land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, subject to basic structure limitations.
Emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine
Although the Court did not give an exhaustive list, it indicated several elements of the basic structure, including:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and democratic form of government
- Secularism
- Federalism
- Separation of powers
- Judicial review
- Rule of law
Over time, this list was expanded in subsequent judgments.
Impact and Long-Term Significance
(a) A Constitutional Balance Achieved
This judgment struck a delicate balance:
- Parliament retains wide power to amend
- But constitutional identity is protected from destruction
Thus:
Neither Parliament nor the judiciary is supreme—the Constitution is supreme.
(b) Use of the Doctrine in Later Cases
The basic structure doctrine has since been used in:
- Indira Nehru Gandhi Case (1975)
- Minerva Mills Case (1980)
- Waman Rao Case (1981)
- I.R. Coelho Case (2007)
Aftermath – Parliamentary Reaction
As a follow-up:
- The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 attempted to:
- Give Parliament unlimited amending power
- Exclude judicial review
These changes were later struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Phase | Position |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament supreme |
| Golak Nath (1967) | Judiciary supreme |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Constitution supreme |
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its Basic Structure, thereby laying down the most important limitation on constitutional amendment power.