Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Leave a Comment / Case Summaries / By

Published On: Decmeber 22nd 2025

Authored By: Sweta Sharma
Heritage Law College, Kolkata

Introduction

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is a major case in Indian Constitutional Law that changed how people understand the power of Parliament to change the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati, who was the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the government’s plan to take over Mutt property under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. The Supreme Court had to decide if parliament had complete power to change any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461).
This case led to the creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s ability to make changes that could damage the core of the Constitution. It shows the balance between the power of the judiciary, and it continues to be very important in Indian constitutional law today.

Facts of the Case

Kesavananda Bharati was the leader of the Edneer Mutt, which owned a lot of land in Kerala.
The state government wanted to use the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969, to take over Mutt property. Bharati argued that this action violated his fundamental rights as stated in Articles 14, 19 (before the 44th Amendment), and 31 (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461).

Earlier court cases such as Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458, and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845, said that Parliament could change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, the court said that Parliament couldn’t change fundamental rights, creating a conflict that this case aimed to settle.

Legal Issues

  1. Does Parliament have unlimited power to change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461)?
  2. Should amendments to the Constitution be reviewed by the courts if they affect the basic structure?
  3. Are the earlier interpretations of Parliament’s amending power correct (Shankari Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 458; Sajjan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 845; Golaknath, AIR 1967 SC 1643)?
  4. What does the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution include, and can it be changed?

Arguments

Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati):

  • Fundamental rights are not supposed to be changed or removed by Parliament.
  • Parliament’s power under Article 368 is not limitless.
  • The courts should check if changes damage the core of the Constitution.

Respondent (State of Kerala):

  • Parliament has the power under Article 368 to change any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. 
  • Previous court decisions confirmed that Parliament has this power (Shankari Prasad, AIR    1951 SC 458; Sajjan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 845).
  •  Legislatures need the freedom to make changes for reforms like land redistribution.

They stressed the need for a balance between legislative freedom and judicial review, so that changes don’t harm the identity of the Constitution, but also respect the intent of the legislature.

Judgment / Decision

In a 7–6 majority, the Supreme Court ruled:

  1. Parliament cannot change the basic structure. While it can amend the Constitution, it can’t destroy or change the core elements (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461)
  2. The basic structure includes the Constitution’s supremacy, rule of law, separation of powers, fundamental rights, judicial review, democracy, and secularism.
  3. Amendments to the Constitution should be checked by the courts to keep the core of the Constitution safe.
  4. There’s a balance between allowing legislatures to change things and protecting the essential parts of the Constitution.

Dissenting Opinion

Six judges believed that Parliament should have unlimited power under Article 368 and that the courts shouldn’t limit this power.

Impact and Significance

  • This case created the Basic Structure Doctrine, which keeps Parliament from making changes that could harm the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461).
  • It helped shape later important decisions like Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
  • It stopped lawmakers from making arbitrary changes to basic rights.
  • It helped protect democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.
  • It affected discussions about land reforms, property rights, and civil freedoms.
  • The case is studied in comparative constitutional law as a model of courts protecting the identity of a constitution.
  • It shows how courts can check the power of legislatures in democracies.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ensures that the core of the Constitution is protected.
By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, it keeps Parliament from undermining important principles while allowing for a balance between legislative power and judicial oversight. The ruling continues to influence constitutional changes, reinforcing the protection of fundamental rights and democratic governance (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461).

References