Published On: December 31st 2025
Authored By: Astha Sen
Kristu Jayanti College of Law, Bengaluru
- Title: Kesavananda Bharati and State of Kerala
- Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: S.M. Sikri, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, J.M. Shelat, K.K. Mathew, K.S. Hegde, M.H. Beg, P. Jaganmahon Reddy, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud, A.K. Mukherji
- Date of Judgement: 24/04/1973
- Relevant Provisions/ Statutes: Article 13, 21, and 368 of the Indian Constitution.
Brief Facts:
Kesavananda Bharati was the chief of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala. He owned certain lands in his name. The Kerala government enacted the Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 which allowed the government to take over the religious institutions, including kesavananda Bharati’s land. Kesavananda Bharati contested the constitutional validity of these laws, claiming they infringed upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (management of religious affairs), 14 (equality), 19(1)(f) (right to property acquisition), and 31 (protection against compulsory acquisition of property). The case further challenged the legitimacy of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments passed by Parliament, which sought to restrict judicial review and augment Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. In 1973, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment by a 13-judge bench, held that while Parliament had broad powers to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure” or fundamental principles such as democracy, federalism, secularism, and fundamental rights. The Court upheld some aspects of the amendments but invalidated others, thereby establishing the basic structure doctrine that restricts Parliament’s amending powers and safeguards the Constitution’s core values.
Issues:
- Whether the parliament has the power to ament constitution under Article 368?
- Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments are constitutional valid?
Arguments:
Petitioner’s Argument:
It was urged that the power of parliament is much more limited. And they have provided the freedom by the Constitution. The petitioners argue that the Constitution granted citizens freedoms meant to last permanently, with the intention of protecting the nation from any future tyranny by elected representatives. They contend that this safeguard against oppression has been undermined by the insertion of Article 31C through the Twenty-fifth Amendment. If Article 31C is upheld, they claim, it would mean that the extent of citizens’ freedoms will no longer be guaranteed by the Constitution but instead decided by Parliament and the State Legislatures. The counsel of petitioner also contended that Parliament, being a creation of the Constitution, can exercise only the amending powers that the Constitution—given by the people to themselves—has conferred upon it. While Parliament may amend Article 368, it cannot use that authority to expand its own amending power indefinitely. A body established by the Constitution cannot, while acting under it, enlarge its power over the Constitution any more than a body created under an ordinary law can expand its authority beyond what that law permits. Therefore, the amending power does not include the power to increase or alter the very scope of amendment itself or to remove the inherent and implied limitations attached to it. To argue otherwise would render the doctrine of inherent and implied limitations meaningless.
Mr. Palkhivala’s second argument is that the term “amendment” in Article 368 has a restricted meaning and does not authorize any alteration that would damage or destroy the Constitution’s basic features, fundamental principles, or essential elements. He maintained that “amend” or “amendment” generally means making specific changes or improvements to a text, and not possessing an unlimited power to introduce any and every change, including repealing or abolishing the document’s core features. The same principle, he argued, applies when amending a statute or a constitution. To strengthen his submission, he referred to dictionary definitions of “amendment” and urged that while interpreting Article 368, one must consider the authority to whom this power is granted, the historical context in which the Constitution was enacted, the impact of treating the power as unlimited, and the overall scheme of the Constitution.
Mr. Palkhivala on behalf of the petitioner did not rely on the majority decision in Golak Nath case that the fundamental rights could be abridged or taken away only by convening a Constituent Assembly, but based his argument on a theory of legal sovereignty of the people. The Constitution is binding on all the organs of government as well as on the people. Are fundamental rights unamendable? Mr. Palkhivala contended that apart from Article 13(2) fundamental rights are based on Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are natural rights, and, therefore, they are outside the scope of amendment. In Golak Nath case the majority view declined to pronounce any opinion on alleged essential features other than fundamental rights. The concurring view was that fundamental rights were unamendable because they were fundamental. Wanchoo, J. for himself and two other learned Judges and Ramaswami, J. rightly rejected the theory of implied limitations. The three reasons given by Wanchoo, J. are these. First, the doctrine of essential and non-essential features would introduce uncertainty. Secondly, constituent power of amendment does not admit of any impediment of implied restrictions. Thirdly, because there is no express limitation there can be no implied limitation.
Respondent’s Argument:
The respondent claimed that the parliament has the power to abrogate fundamental rights. And also, under article 368 parliament has the power to form government without giving freedom to citizens. The Attorney-General argues that the term “amendment” has a clear, precise, and universally accepted legal meaning, consistently applied in written Constitutions worldwide since their inception. According to him, the word carries the broadest scope, unrestricted by any inherent limitations. He further notes that although the Indian Constitution uses different expressions in various places, this does not imply that they necessarily convey different meanings., The Attorney General rightly submitted that the concept of popular sovereignty is well settled in parliamentary democracy and it means that the people express their will through their representatives elected by them at the general election as the amending body prescribed by the Constitution.
Judgement:
The Court that the Parliament can amend the any part of the constitution subjected to it should not violate the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. The doctrine of “Basic Structure was established to protect the essential features of the Constitution. It upheld the Amendment 24th parliament’s power to amend but struck down the 25th Amendment which restricted the judicial review
The Parliament has the authority under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, but such amendments must not damage or weaken its fundamental framework—this includes the Constitution’s supremacy, the rule of law, the separation of powers among branches of government, the federal structure, and the protection of fundamental rights.
The Court validated the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which clarified the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. However, it invalidated certain provisions of the 25th Amendment because they infringed upon the judiciary’s authority of judicial review. The principle established by this case remains the foundation for courts in India to review and potentially strike down constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
Parliament can amend Constitution under Article 368 but it shall not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The ratio decidendi of the Kesavananda Bharati case is the establishment of the “basic structure doctrine,” which declares that although Parliament has broad powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the essential framework or fundamental features of the Constitution. These features include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights. The Court ruled that any constitutional amendment that damages or destroys these core principles would be invalid. This doctrine serves as the binding legal principle that forms the basis for judicial review of constitutional amendments in India, ensuring the Constitution’s fundamental values remain protected.
Obiter Dicta:
Obiter dicta in the Kesavananda Bharati case are the judges’ observations and remarks that were not crucial to the final verdict. These include comments on the Constitution’s flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, the necessity of balancing the power to amend the Constitution with preserving its essential principles, and discussions on secularism, the Preamble, and fundamental rights. Although these observations are not binding in future cases, they provide persuasive guidance on constitutional interpretation and the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution. The binding part of the judgment is the ratio decidendi, which established the basic structure doctrine, while these broader judicial reflections are considered obiter dicta.
Final Decision:
Kesavananda Bharati lost the case but this is landmark case which established the basic structure doctrine and explained the scope of power of Parliament to amend under 368. The final ruling in the Kesavananda Bharati case, decided by a narrow 7:6 majority of a 13-judge Supreme Court bench on April 24, 1973, established that while Parliament holds extensive powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, these powers are subject to limitations. The Court held that Parliament cannot change or dismantle the essential framework or “basic structure” of the Constitution, which encompasses democracy, secularism, federalism, the rule of law, and protection of fundamental rights. The verdict upheld the 24th Amendment but struck down parts of the 25th Amendment for violating judicial review. This landmark decision introduced the basic structure doctrine, which limits parliamentary authority and ensures the Constitution’s fundamental principles endure despite amendments. The judgment is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, preserving the Constitution’s spirit while allowing for necessary socio-economic reforms.
