Published On: March 13th 2026
Authored By: Ayushii Mishra
Renaissance Law College Indore Affiliated to DAVV
Abstract
The Indian Constitution is the lengthiest written constitution in the world, containing numerous articles, schedules, and parts enshrined within its framework. The themes and principles are drawn from various countries across the globe. The constitution of any country plays a crucial role in governance, as demonstrated most powerfully by the landmark decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, heard by a 13-judge bench, which stands as the most consequential case in the history of the Indian Constitution. April 24 is regarded as a significant day in Indian constitutional history because on that date the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered its decision in the historical case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Before examining the case, it is worthwhile to understand who Kesavananda Bharati was. He was the leader of the Hindu monastery, Edneer Mutt, in the state of Kerala. This was the first case that evolved the principles of the Doctrine of Basic Structure in the Indian Constitution. Following this landmark ruling, numerous subsequent judgments have been passed to protect the principles of this doctrine.[1]
Keywords: Kesavananda Bharati, Indian Constitution, State of Kerala, Basic Structure Doctrine, Hindu Monastery, Edneer Mutt, transparency, secularism, democracy, integrity, sovereignty, federalism
I. Introduction
The evolution of the Doctrine of Basic Structure has its origins in the land reforms undertaken by the Kerala government during the 1950s and 1960s. These decisions had a crucial impact on society. In India, there are three main organs of the government: the legislature, which makes the law; the executive, which enforces the law; and the judiciary, which interprets the law. Each organ performs its functions differently, and the concept of checks and balances ensures that each organ keeps watch over the others. As there are local laws for land in every state, this case similarly relates to laws and reforms regarding land. Various reforms were introduced under the Kerala government. The main objective of these land reforms was to redistribute land from large landowners to the poor, small, and landless farmers so that they could earn their livelihood.
The events that gave rise to this doctrine came into frame in the year 1963, when the Kerala government passed an act regarding land reforms. The act prescribed a limited amount of land that any owner could hold. These reforms set out such limits on land holdings. In earlier times, before independence, large landowners kept small and landless persons working on their land, provided little in return, and charged high interest rates. Observing all of this, state governments tried to enact laws to protect landless owners and those with small holdings.
Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in the state of Kerala. In 1970, the Kerala government imposed restrictions on the ownership of land that religious institutions could hold. In response to these restrictions, Kesavananda Bharati first challenged the constitutionality of the act before the Kerala High Court. The case subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately rendered its decision in favour of the state government. Around this time, several constitutional amendments were passed by the Parliament of India. The 24th Amendment addressed the powers of the judiciary and judicial review. Following that, the Parliament passed two further amendments, the 25th and 29th, which related to the fundamental rights of citizens and the amending powers of Parliament.
Having observed all these amendments, Kesavananda Bharati challenged their validity before the Supreme Court, arguing that they directly violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This challenge gave rise to the Doctrine of Basic Structure and produced the most landmark case in the history of the Indian Constitution and Indian society. The doctrine sets limits on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
II. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This is one of the most historically significant cases in Indian constitutional history and continues to be studied in law schools across India. The case not only marks a turning point in constitutional development but also reinforces the rule of law and the principles of democracy. The case was filed by Kesavananda Bharati in relation to the 24th, 25th, and 29th constitutional amendments, which concerned the powers of the judiciary and the fundamental rights of citizens.
It was the only case in which a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme Court of India was constituted. The reason for constituting the largest bench was that the case involved a fundamental question regarding the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The bench took six months to hear arguments and deliver its final decision. The decision was rendered by a majority of 7:6. The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The Court identified various features of the Constitution, including federalism, democracy, secularism, and the rule of law, as forming part of the basic structure. These features cannot be amended by Parliament. Furthermore, the Court held that judicial review is a crucial part of Indian democracy and of the Constitution itself, forming part of the basic structure and therefore beyond the reach of constitutional amendments.
The case became historically significant because it gave rise to the Doctrine of Basic Structure, which holds great importance in Indian constitutional history. Any part of a constitutional amendment that violates the basic structure of the Constitution must be declared null and void. Where amendments are necessary, Parliament must ensure that the Constitution upholds the integrity and sovereignty of the country as the supreme law of the land. The core or crux of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended.[2]
III. Evolution of the Case: Precedents and Development
Before the emergence of the Doctrine of Basic Structure, several cases were decided by the Supreme Court regarding the amending powers of Parliament and the protection of fundamental rights. The following cases are significant in tracing the evolution of the doctrine:
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): This was the first case in which the Supreme Court rendered a verdict on the question of constitutional amendment. The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Indian Constitution, including the fundamental rights, under Article 368. This judgment was followed by the Court’s decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Following Shankari Prasad, this case upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that it had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, this decision attracted dissenting opinions from certain judges.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): In response to the dissent expressed in Sajjan Singh, a larger bench of the Supreme Court reversed course and held that Parliament does not have the authority to amend fundamental rights, thereby overriding the restrictions placed by earlier decisions.[3]
4. 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971): Parliament responded to Golak Nath by enacting the 24th Constitutional Amendment, which reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Part III relating to fundamental rights.
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this landmark case, the Court held the Doctrine of Basic Structure and stated that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy the main crux or basic structure of the Constitution. The Indian Constitution upholds the principles of democracy, integrity, and secularism. As the supreme law of the land, Parliament must protect the dignity and sovereignty of the Constitution and must not misuse its amending powers.
IV. Development of the Doctrine After Kesavananda Bharati
The Doctrine of Basic Structure was further developed and applied in numerous landmark cases following the Kesavananda Bharati decision. Some of the most significant among them are discussed below:
1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case arose out of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, which sought to exclude certain electoral disputes from judicial review. The Supreme Court invoked the Doctrine of Basic Structure and struck down the relevant provisions as unconstitutional.
2. 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976): Parliament attempted to limit the power of judicial review through this amendment, claiming unlimited amending authority. The Supreme Court made clear that Parliament cannot misuse the powers vested in it, and the amendment’s relevant provisions were subsequently invalidated.
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): In this case, judicial review was firmly recognised as an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Supreme Court invalidated the relevant provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act and reiterated that the integrity of the Constitution cannot be compromised.
4. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): This case examined the distinction between pre-1973 laws and post-Kesavananda Bharati laws. The Supreme Court held that the protection of the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution applies to pre-1973 laws, while post-case laws remain subject to judicial review.
5. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): This case addressed the provisions relating to reservations. The Court upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) while capping total reservations at 50%. The Court emphasised equality as one of the fundamental features of the Constitution and as a part of the basic structure.[4]
6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court held that democracy, federalism, and secularism are the most fundamental features of the Indian Constitution and form the main crux of the basic structure. The case also addressed the provisions governing the imposition of President’s Rule and its susceptibility to judicial review.
V. Significance of the Doctrine of Basic Structure
The Indian Constitution contains various fundamental features, and the principles enshrined within it are designed to protect democracy and the integrity of the nation. The Doctrine of Basic Structure plays a vital role in ensuring the preservation of these fundamental principles. The primary objective of the doctrine is to prevent any constitutional amendment from destroying or altering these foundational features.
1. Checking the Power of Parliament: This doctrine directly prohibits Parliament from amending the core values of the Constitution. It serves as a check on Parliament’s amending power, ensuring that the main crux of the Constitution is not destroyed or altered. The doctrine prevents the Constitution from becoming a tool for authoritarianism.
2. Protecting the Original Identity of the Constitution: The laws of India have evolved significantly since independence, in response to changes in the nation and society. While the Constitution must be a living document that adapts to the needs of a changing society and technological advancements, it must do so without losing its core identity, democratic values, and foundational essence.
3. Protecting the Concept of Judicial Review: The three organs of the government, namely the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, each play a significant role in governance. The judiciary, in particular, interprets the law and keeps watch over the other two organs. The concept of checks and balances ensures transparency in the system. The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Indian Constitution, and its power to invalidate amendments that violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution is itself a part of that structure.
4. Preserving Core Constitutional Values: There are essential democratic pillars that protect the core values of the Indian Constitution, including the rule of law, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, and individual fundamental rights. The Doctrine of Basic Structure safeguards all of these essential pillars and also protects the provisions of equality.[5]
5. Ensuring Transparency and Stability: The Indian Constitution reflects both rigidity and flexibility through its amending procedures. The existence of a permanent and non-amendable core ensures stability and continuity in India’s democratic framework while also ensuring transparency in governance.
VI. Criticism of the Doctrine of Basic Structure
1. Lack of Constitutional Basis: While the doctrine has been widely affirmed, it has also faced substantial criticism. Critics argue that it represents a judicial invention rather than a constitutional mandate, as the phrase “basic structure” does not appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
2. Ambiguity in Definition: The doctrine identifies a basic structure but does not clearly define what is included within it. This results in subjectivity and vagueness, leaving the determination of what constitutes the basic structure entirely to judicial discretion.
3. Violation of the Separation of Powers: The doctrine limits Parliament’s legislative competence, which critics argue intrudes upon the domain of the legislature and upsets the principle of separation of powers.
4. Inflexibility and Rigidity: The doctrine is considered inflexible in certain respects, as it prevents necessary constitutional evolution in response to changing social and political realities. It limits Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, potentially hindering legitimate reform.
VII. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Basic Structure holds that the main crux of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament. While Parliament has the power to amend the Indian Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy the foundational features, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and judicial review, that constitute the basic structure. The Kesavananda Bharati case remains the most crucial landmark decision in the history of the Indian Constitution, having given rise to this doctrine. The doctrine protects the soul of the Constitution and acts as a safeguard against amendments that would undermine its foundational character.
The doctrine ensures that the Constitution remains a living document while preserving its essential democratic spirit. Although the doctrine has attracted criticism on account of its vagueness and the ambiguity in defining the basic structure, its significance to Indian democracy cannot be understated. It stands as the most important constitutional safeguard against legislative overreach and continues to shape the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary in India.
References
[1] Supreme Court of India, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. Available at: https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/KBJ/?p=home/intro
[2] ConstitutionNet, “Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.” Available at: https://constitutionnet.org/vl/item/basic-structure-indian-constitution
[3] IL Education, Chapter 5: Constitutional Amendments and Judicial Review. Available at: https://book.iledu.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/05.pdf
[4] Law Journals, Vol. 11, Issue 10 (2025). Available at: https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2025/vol11issue10/11230.pdf
[5] JSTOR. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952120
