Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

1. Case Title

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

2. Citation

AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225

Bluebook Format:
 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461; (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.

3. Court

Supreme Court of India

4. Bench

S.M. Sikri (C.J.I.), J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, K.K. Mathew, and P. Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ.

5. Date of Judgment

April 24, 1973

6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions

• Constitution of India: Articles 13, 21, 368
• 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments

7. Brief Facts

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. During the pendency of the petition, the Parliament passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which substantially increased the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution. These amendments, among other things, gave precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights and enabled Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III.

The petitioner amended his writ petition to include a challenge to these constitutional amendments, arguing they violated the basic features of the Constitution and fundamental rights.

8. Issues Involved

1. Does Parliament have unrestricted power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
2. Can the basic structure of the Constitution be altered through constitutional amendments?
3. Are the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments constitutionally valid?

9. Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The term “amendment” under Article 368 does not include the power to destroy the identity of the Constitution.
• Fundamental rights form the core of the Constitution and cannot be abridged or eliminated by Parliament.
• Any amendment that violates the essential features or the democratic structure of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Respondent’s Arguments (State/Union of India):

• Parliament has absolute power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368.
• The term “amendment” includes modification, addition, or repeal, and is not limited by Part III of the Constitution.
• The 24th and 25th Amendments merely clarify the position of law and reflect the sovereign will of the people through the legislature.^[1][2]

10. Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a historic 7:6 majority verdict. The Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited. It introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that while Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, it cannot destroy or alter its basic structure.

The judgment partially upheld the 24th and 25th Amendments but struck down the part of the 25th Amendment that made the implementation of Directive Principles immune from judicial review.^[3]

11. Ratio Decidendi

Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The term “amendment” must be understood as “change” but not “destruction.”

Key components of the basic structure include:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Federalism
• Judicial review
• Rule of law^[4]

12. Obiter Dicta

Several judges expressed concern about the erosion of constitutional democracy through excessive legislative power. Observations were made on:

• The need for balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
• The importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding the Constitution.
• The Constitution being a living document that must be preserved against authoritarian overreach.

13. Final Decision

The Supreme Court:

• Upheld the constitutional validity of the 24th and 29th Amendments.
• Struck down the clause in the 25th Amendment that curtailed judicial review.
• Established the Basic Structure Doctrine as a constitutional safeguard.

Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was upheld, but limited by the basic structure test.

^[1] Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971

^[2] Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971

^[3] Kesavananda Bharati, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. at 1461–62.

^[4] Id. at 1461–65; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1789.