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

1. Case Title: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

2. Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225

3. Court: Supreme Court of India

4. Bench: S.M. Sikri (CJI), 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, 19, 21, 25, 26, 31, and 368

• Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 & 1969
• Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-ninth Constitutional Amendments

7. Brief Facts

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt (Edneer Mutt, Kerala), challenged the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1969. He argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, and 31 relating to freedom of religion, property rights, and management of religious institutions. While his petition was pending, the Parliament passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to strengthen its power to amend the Constitution. These amendments gave rise to a much larger constitutional question—whether there were any inherent limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. Thus, the case went beyond a property dispute and became a historic constitutional challenge.

8. Issues Involved

• Does Parliament have unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights?
• Can constitutional amendments be tested on the touchstone of Article 13 (laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void)?
• Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were valid.
• Can Parliament alter the basic structure of the Constitution?

9. Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Kesavananda Bharati):

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited.
• Fundamental rights are part of the basic framework of the Constitution and cannot be destroyed.
• The Constitution is based on rule of law and limited government, which must remain intact.
• If unlimited power is conceded, Parliament could even abolish democracy or convert India into a dictatorship.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Kerala & Union of India):

• Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is absolute and unlimited.
• Article 368 itself grants sovereign authority to alter any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• The 24th and 25th Amendments were valid exercises of Parliament’s power.
• Limiting the amending power would hinder social and economic reforms, especially land redistribution and welfare measures.

10. Judgment

Delivered by a thirteen-judge bench—the largest in Indian judicial history—the judgment was split 7:6. The majority held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited. Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. The Court upheld the 24th Amendment but struck down parts of the 25th Amendment that violated the basic structure. The 29th Amendment, placing certain Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, was upheld, but subject to judicial review if they damaged the basic structure.

11. Ratio Decidendi

The Basic Structure Doctrine was established:

• Parliament under Article 368 can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy or abrogate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Essential features like supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, democracy, secularism, and fundamental rights are beyond the reach of amendment.

12. Obiter Dicta

Some judges observed that the preamble is a part of the Constitution and reflects its basic philosophy. Observations were made on the balance between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy. Judicial role as the guardian of the Constitution was emphasized.

13. Final Decision

• 24th Amendment – Upheld in its entirety.
• 25th Amendment – Partially upheld (validity of Article 31C limited).
• 29th Amendment – Upheld, but subject to judicial review.
• The Court ruled that while Kesavananda Bharati’s immediate property rights were not protected, the larger constitutional principle of basic structure prevailed.

14. Impact and Significance

• This case is regarded as the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
• It ensured that the Constitution remains supreme over transient parliamentary majorities.
  
• Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which has since been applied in numerous cases, including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).
  
• It preserved democracy, fundamental rights, and judicial review as essential features.
  
• While controversial at the time, today the judgment is celebrated as a safeguard against authoritarianism.