Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: The Judgment That Made the Constitution Unamendable

Some court cases change the law. A few change the country. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) did something even bigger. It changed what Parliament itself is allowed to do.

This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Even today, every constitutional amendment in India is tested against this doctrine. If an amendment destroys the basic structure of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down.

For judiciary exam aspirants, this is not just important. It is unavoidable. Questions on the Basic Structure Doctrine, Article 368, and constitutional amendments appear regularly in preliminary and mains papers across state and central judiciary exams.

Background: How Did This Case Come About?

To understand Kesavananda Bharati, you need to go back a few decades. After Independence, Parliament passed several laws to carry out land reforms. Zamindars (landlords) challenged these laws, arguing that they violated their fundamental right to property.

Parliament responded with constitutional amendments, adding laws to the 9th Schedule so they could not be challenged in courts. A long and bitter fight between Parliament and the judiciary followed over who had the final say on fundamental rights.

Three earlier cases laid the groundwork for Kesavananda Bharati:

•        Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368.

•        Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Supreme Court again upheld Parliament's unlimited power to amend. However, Justice Mudholkar raised early doubts about whether there were any limits at all.

•        Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): An eleven-judge bench reversed course. The Court held, by a 6:5 majority, that Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights. This shocked Parliament.

Parliament then passed three key amendments to neutralise the Golaknath ruling:

•        24th Amendment: Clarified that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368. It also added Clause 4 to Article 13, making it clear that no constitutional amendment can be challenged under Article 13.

•        25th Amendment: Replaced the word 'compensation' with 'amount' in Article 31(2), meaning Parliament was no longer bound to pay fair compensation when acquiring private property. It also added Article 31(c) to protect laws that implemented Directive Principles under Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from being challenged under Articles 14, 19, or 31.

•        29th Amendment: Placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act (1963) in the 9th Schedule, putting it beyond judicial review.

These three amendments were challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Facts of the Case

Kesavananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He owned land registered in his name. After the Kerala Land Reforms Act was enacted, the state government acquired a portion of that land. Kesavananda Bharati challenged this action under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 were being violated.

The case grew into something much larger. The constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments was challenged before a thirteen-judge bench. It was the largest bench ever assembled by the Supreme Court of India.

Key Issues Before the Court

•        Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?

•        Can Parliament amend or abridge fundamental rights?

•        Were the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments constitutionally valid?

•        Is the Golaknath judgment correct and should it be overruled?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Contentions

•        The 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments violated the fundamental rights of citizens.

•        Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot destroy the basic features of the Constitution.

•        The Constitution represents the will of the people. Amendments that take away this character are beyond Parliament's power.

Respondent's Contentions

•        Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited.

•        Directive Principles of State Policy are equally important as fundamental rights and must be given effect through appropriate legislation.

•        Golaknath was wrongly decided and needed to be overruled.

The Judgment: What Did the Court Decide?

The thirteen-judge bench delivered its decision on April 24, 1973. The judgment ran to approximately 700 pages and was split 7:6. The majority held the following:

•        Parliament does have the power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.

•        However, that power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution.

•        Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) was overruled.

•        The 24th and 25th Amendments were largely upheld, but certain parts of Article 31(c) added by the 25th Amendment were struck down.

The court did not give an exhaustive list of what constitutes the 'basic structure'. But over the years, courts have recognised elements such as supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, judicial review, federal character of the Constitution, unity and integrity of the nation, and free and fair elections as part of this basic structure.

Why This Case Still Matters

The Basic Structure Doctrine introduced by this case has been applied and reinforced in several subsequent judgments:

•        Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down Clause 4 of Article 329A, which was added by the 39th Amendment to validate the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The court held that it violated the basic structure.

•        Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court used the doctrine to strike down parts of the 42nd Amendment, which had tried to give an unlimited amending power to Parliament and placed Directive Principles above fundamental rights.

•        S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The court held that secularism and federalism are part of the basic structure, and the President's rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.

The doctrine protects the Constitution from being hollowed out from within. Even if a party has a huge majority in Parliament, it cannot use that majority to dismantle the constitutional framework that protects citizens.

Role of Directive Principles in This Case

One of the central tensions in this case was between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV). The government argued that land reform laws were meant to implement the Directive Principles and should not be blocked by fundamental rights. The court took the view that both are important. It held that while Directive Principles can guide legislation and even limit some fundamental rights through proper amendments, they cannot be used to completely override the basic rights guaranteed to citizens.

For Judiciary Exam Aspirants: What to Focus On

This case is frequently tested in constitutional law papers. Here are the key points you must know:

•        The case was decided by a 13-judge bench, the largest in Supreme Court history.

•        The verdict was 7:6 in favour of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

•        It overruled Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967).

•        The judgment was approximately 700 pages long.

•        Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend but not to destroy the Constitution.

•        The 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were all challenged in this case.

•        The Basic Structure Doctrine has no exhaustive definition. Courts determine it case by case.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is not just a case study. It is the foundation of Indian constitutional law as we know it today. It drew a line between what Parliament can do and what it cannot do. That line has held for over five decades.

For anyone preparing for judiciary exams, this case needs to be understood deeply. The Basic Structure Doctrine, the role of Article 368, the conflict between fundamental rights and Directive Principles, and the long chain of cases leading up to this judgment are all part of the essential syllabus.

At Aashayein Judiciary, our faculty, including Nitesh Sir, cover landmark constitutional cases like Kesavananda Bharati in depth. The focus is always on helping aspirants understand the reasoning behind judgments, not just memorise them. That understanding is what helps in answering application-based questions in judiciary exams.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

The Basic Structure Doctrine says that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic or essential features. Even though Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend, that power has limits. The doctrine was first laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

2. Who was Kesavananda Bharati?

Kesavananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He challenged the state's acquisition of his land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

3. What did this case overrule?

This case overruled Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Parliament had no power to amend fundamental rights at all.

4. How many judges were on the bench?

The case was heard by a thirteen-judge bench. It is the largest constitutional bench ever assembled in the history of the Supreme Court of India.

5. Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?

Yes, Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368. But it cannot amend them in a way that destroys the basic structure of the Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case made this distinction clear.

6. Is the Preamble part of the basic structure?

Yes, the Preamble is considered to be an important part of the Constitution and reflects its basic nature. While it can be amended, the core values it reflects, such as sovereignty, democracy, and the republican character of the state, are part of the basic structure.