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

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

• Article 13 – Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights
• Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
• Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs
• Article 368 – Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
• 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments

Brief Facts:

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, on the ground that it violated his fundamental right to manage religious property under Article 26. During the pendency of the case, the Parliament enacted the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments which widened Parliament’s amending powers and curtailed the right to property. This raised the larger constitutional question of whether Parliament had unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Owing to its importance, the case was referred to a historic 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history.

Issues Involved:

1. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited?
2. Can Parliament amend or abrogate Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution?
3. Is there any implied limitation on Parliament’s amending power?

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and must be subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Fundamental Rights form the heart of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated or destroyed.
• Unlimited amending power would allow Parliament to dismantle the very identity of the Constitution, including its democratic and federal nature.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Article 368 confers absolute amending power upon Parliament.
• The framers intended to give Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• An amendment does not amount to “destroying” the Constitution but merely modifies it in accordance with democratic will.

Judgment

In a narrow 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is broad but not unlimited. Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or “essential features” of the Constitution. This judgment gave birth to the Basic Structure Doctrine, a judicial innovation that remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament, under Article 368, has the power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy or damage its basic structure. Essential features like the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, rule of law, federalism, and judicial review form part of the basic structure and are beyond Parliament’s amending reach.

Obiter Dicta

Several judges observed that the Constitution is not merely a political framework but a social contract safeguarding justice, liberty, and equality. The judiciary was recognized as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution to protect against arbitrary or excessive parliamentary power.

Final Decision

• The 24th Amendment was upheld, affirming that Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• The 25th Amendment was partly upheld, but clauses that excluded judicial review were struck down.
• The 29th Amendment was upheld but made subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Ultimately, the Court struck a balance by affirming Parliament’s wide amending power while safeguarding the Constitution’s essential identity.

Critical Analysis

The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati represents a turning point in Indian constitutional history. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court ensured that the Constitution cannot be reduced to a tool of parliamentary majorities. The decision preserved democracy, constitutional supremacy, and judicial review as checks against authoritarianism.

However, the case has been criticized for judicial overreach, as the Basic Structure Doctrine was not explicitly provided in the Constitution. Critics argue that it allows unelected judges to impose unwritten limitations on Parliament. Yet, in practice, the doctrine has served as a vital safeguard against the erosion of fundamental values, especially during times of political instability (e.g., the Emergency).

The doctrine continues to guide constitutional interpretation and has been reaffirmed in later cases such as Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980). Its legacy demonstrates the judiciary’s proactive role in preserving the constitutional ethos.

Conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is rightly hailed as the “Constitutional Magna Carta of India.” By striking a balance between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy, the Court safeguarded the spirit of the Constitution while respecting the will of the legislature. The case remains one of the most influential judgments in Indian constitutional law, ensuring that while the Constitution can evolve through amendments, its core values and principles remain inviolable.