Case Summary: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

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: 13 Judges Bench (the largest ever in Indian judicial history): 

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, P. Jagmohan Reddy, A.K. Mukherjee,  S.N. Dwivedi 

5. Date of Judgment: April 24, 1973 

6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: 

Articles 13, 21, 25, 26, 31, and 368 of the Constitution of India 

24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments 

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 

Brief Facts 

• Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt (a Hindu monastery in Kerala), challenged  the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as it restricted the property rights of religious  institutions.
• While his petition was pending, the Government of India passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th  Amendments to the Constitution. 
• 24th Amendment (1971): Gave Parliament the explicit power to amend any part of the  Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. 
• 25th Amendment (1971): Restricted the scope of judicial review and curtailed the  right to property. 
• 29th Amendment (1972): Placed certain Kerala Land Reforms Acts in the Ninth  Schedule, giving them protection from being challenged in court. 
• Kesavananda Bharati argued that these amendments violated his Fundamental Rights under  Article 26 (freedom to manage religious property) and undermined the very structure of the  Constitution. 
• The case was referred to the largest-ever Constitutional Bench of 13 judges to settle  whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution. 

Issues Involved 

• Does Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 have any limits? 2. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights completely or take them away? 
• Can constitutional amendments be challenged under Article 13 as violating Fundamental  Rights? 
• Does the Constitution have a “basic structure” that cannot be altered or destroyed? 

Arguments 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Kesavananda Bharati): 

• Article 368 does not give Parliament unlimited power; the word amendment means only  minor changes, not destruction of the Constitution. 
• Fundamental Rights are the soul of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. Unlimited amendment power would convert democracy into dictatorship. 
• The Constitution has certain basic features (democracy, rule of law, separation of powers,  judicial review) that cannot be altered. 
• Article 13 applies to “law,” and constitutional amendments should also be treated as “law,”  hence subject to Fundamental Rights. 

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

• Parliament is sovereign in the matter of amending the Constitution.
• Article 368 gives Parliament unlimited powers to amend any provision, including  Fundamental Rights. 
• The distinction between “ordinary law” and “constitutional law” must be maintained; Article  13 does not apply to constitutional amendments. 
• To meet socio-economic needs, Parliament must have the power to amend Fundamental  Rights (like right to property). 
• There is no mention of “basic structure” in the Constitution; introducing it would be judicial  overreach. 

Judgment 

Delivered on 24th April 1973, by a 7–6 majority. 

Held: 

1. Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but this power is  not unlimited. 
2. Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
3. The 24th Amendment (giving Parliament explicit amending power) was valid.
4. The 25th Amendment was partly valid: 

The provision limiting judicial review was struck down. 

The provision restricting property rights was upheld. 

The 29th Amendment was upheld, but laws placed in the Ninth Schedule can still be  judicially reviewed if they destroy the basic structure. 

This case thus gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine — a judicial innovation unique to  India. 

Ratio Decidendi 

Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter,  damage, or destroy its “basic structure.” 

Examples of basic structure: 

• Supremacy of the Constitution 
• Rule of law 
• Separation of powers 
• Judicial review 
• Democracy
• Fundamental Rights 

Obiter Dicta 

• Observations on the role of judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. 
• Remarks that India must remain a democratic republic; any amendment attempting to destroy  democracy would be unconstitutional. 
• The idea that balance must be maintained between Parliament’s amending power and  citizens’ rights. 

Final Decision 

• Petitioner partly succeeded. 
• The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment. 
• The 25th Amendment was partially struck down (judicial review was preserved). The 29th Amendment was upheld, but subject to the “basic structure” test. 
• For the first time, the Basic Structure Doctrine was formally recognized, becoming a  permanent part of Indian constitutional law. 

Conclusion 

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It  established that while Parliament has vast powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy  its core principles. This doctrine ensures that India remains a democratic, constitutional  republic, and protects citizens’ fundamental rights against authoritarian misuse of power.