Published on: 25th October 2025
Authored by: Aastha
Shambhunath Institute of Law
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 13-Judge Constitution Bench (Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.K. Mukherjea, G.K. Mitter, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, and H.R. Khanna)
Date of Judgement: April 24, 1973
Relevant Statutes and Key Provision:
Constitutional Provisions
- Fundamental Rights (Articles 13, 14, 19, 25, 26)
- Amendment procedures (Article 368)
- Property rights (Article 31, 31A, 31B)
- The Ninth Schedule
State Legislation
- Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963
- Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969
Constitutional Amendments
- 24th Amendment (1971) – Expanding Parliament’s amending power
- 25th Amendment (1971) – Modifying property rights and compensation
- 29th Amendment (1972) – Adding Kerala Acts to Ninth Schedule
Preamble to the Constitution
- Considered as a part of the basic structure
Introduction
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[1] case is a major turning point in Indian constitutional law, changing how Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution relates to the judiciary’s power to review those changes. This important ruling introduced the idea of the “Basic Structure,” which is now a key part of how the Indian Constitution is understood and interpreted. The case started as a regular disagreement over property rights involving a religious group but turned into a big discussion about how much power Parliament has to change the Constitution and how far it can go in making laws. This case is very important because it shows the Supreme Court’s strongest stance on balancing democratic processes with the Constitution’s fundamental principle.
Brief Facts
The case began because of complaints from Kesavananda Bharati, who was the leader of the Edneer Mutt, a religious group in Kerala. The Mutt owned a lot of farmland, which was affected by the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963[2] and later changes to that law. These laws placed limits on how much land the Mutt could own and allowed the government to take over any extra land they had.
Kesavananda Bharati argued that these laws violated his basic rights as outlined in Articles 14, 19(1) (f), and 25 of the Constitution. These rights include equal treatment under the law, the ability to own and manage property, and freedom to practice religion. He claimed that the land reforms were interfering with the religious activities of the Mutt and breaking constitutional protections. But the case took a different turn because of larger changes in the Constitution. When it reached the Supreme Court, Parliament had already made several constitutional amendments. These included the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which aimed to limit the courts’ ability to review land reform laws and increase Parliament’s power to change the Constitution.The 24th Amendment in 1971 changed Article 13 and added Article 368(1), which allowed Parliament to change any part of the Constitution, even parts that protect fundamental rights.
The 25th Amendment in 1971 made it harder to challenge the right to own property and reduced compensation for land taken by the government. The 29th Amendment in 1972 added the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Ninth Schedule, which means it could not be challenged in court.
Legal Issues
Primary Issue
Whether Parliament possesses unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including the authority to alter or destroy its basic features and fundamental rights.
Subsidiary Issues
- Whether the Constitutional Amendment can be applied to fundamental rights as per Article 368 of the Constitution?
- Whether the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, is constitutionally valid or not?
- Whether the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1972, is constitutionally valid or not?
- Whether the 29th Constitutional Amendment Act, is valid, and not to what extent can Parliament exercises its power to amend the Constitution?
- Whether fundamental rights could be amended or abrogated entirely?
- Whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were immune from judicial review?
- Whether judicial review itself could be eliminated through constitutional amendment?
- Whether Constitution has basic or essential features that cannot be destroyed?
Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Parliament cannot change the Constitution in any way they want. They believe giving unlimited power to the Parliament is dangerous because it could lead to misuse. The Parliament cannot use its amendment power to change the basic structure of the Constitution, which was discussed by Justice Mudhokar in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[3]. He pointed out that the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments violated the Fundamental Right mentioned in Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.
Some of the key points made in the arguments are as follows:
- It was said that Article 368 of the Constitution does not allow the Parliament to change, amend, or abolish the fundamental structure of the Constitution or the basic rights of citizens.
- It was also claimed that the word ‘amendment’ does not mean the core identity or structure of the Constitution can be changed or destroyed when using the power to amend.
- It was also argued that the power to amend comes from the Constitution itself, and therefore, it has certain built-in limits.
- It was also stated that the Parliament is not allowed to change the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent in this case was the state. It was argued that the supremacy of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the Indian legal system, and as a result, Parliament has the authority to change the Constitution without any restrictions.
The respondent in this case was the state. It was argued that the supremacy of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the Indian legal system, and as a result, Parliament has the authority to change the Constitution without any restrictions.
Some of the key points from the arguments are as follows:
- The main argument from the respondent was that Parliament has unlimited power to make changes to any part of the Constitution, with no exceptions. This power is given under Article 368 of the Constitution.
- It was also claimed that the term “amendment” means that Article 368 allows Parliament to add, change, modify, remove, or abolish any part of the Constitution.
- Another point made by the state was that the only limits on Parliament’s amending power are the procedural rules outlined in Article 368.
- It was also argued that the Indian Parliament has the authority to change fundamental rights by removing or abolishing them if it deems it necessary, using its constituent power.
- It was stated that since members of Parliament are elected by the people of India, they are empowered to alter fundamental laws according to the needs of the citizens.
Judgement
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kesavananda Bharati case was announced on 24th April 1973, with a narrow majority of 7:6. Seven judges supported the view that the Indian Constitution can be amended in a similar way to other laws and statutes. They allowed this because it helps the state meet its social and economic responsibilities towards Indian citizens. The fundamental rights given to citizens cannot be altered by the Parliament through amendments. The basic structure of the Constitution must stay unchanged. The six judges in the minority believed that Parliament should not have unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
The landmark ruling was delivered by Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, along with justices K. S. Hegde, B. K. Mukherjea, J. M. Shelat, A. N. Grover, P. Jagmohan Reddy, and Khanna. The minority opinions were written by A. N. Ray, D. G. Palekar, K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, S. N. Dwivedi, and Y. V. Chandrachud. These judges were cautious about giving Parliament complete authority.
The court upheld the 24th Amendment entirely. However, in the case of the 25th Amendment, parts one and two were found to be within the legal limits and beyond the legal limits respectively. This case answered many questions that were left unanswered in the Golaknath case regarding Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution as long as it does not alter the basic structure. It also emphasized that the doctrine of basic structure should guide Parliament when making constitutional amendments.
Ratio decidendi
- Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice J. M. Shelat, Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice A. N. Grover, Justice Hans Raj Khanna, and Justice B. K. Mukherjea were in the majority. They said that even though the Constitution can be amended, its basic structure cannot be changed. They believed that the main framework of the Constitution should remain untouched while making any changes.
- Justice Y. Chandrachud, Justice D. G. Palekar, Justice A. N. Ray, Justice M. H. Beg, Justice K. K. Mathew, and Justice SN Dwivedi had a different view. They argued that Article 368 allows for the introduction, amendment, or removal of any part of the Constitution, except those that deal with fundamental rights. They said this power covers changing or removing any part of the Constitution, as long as fundamental rights are not affected.
- In addition, Justice Khanna noted that the power to amend does not extend to changing the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Justice Mathew and Justice Ray agreed with the idea of plenary rights. They said that the Indian Constitution cannot be completely scrapped, which would leave the country without a functioning legal system. They also said that changes must ensure that there are proper mechanisms to create, develop, interpret, and enforce laws.
Obiter Dicta in Kesavananda Bharati
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
The court, in its majority opinion, introduced the basic structure doctrine. This means that certain key elements of the Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament. While this was the main point of the case, the court also explained what the basic structure is, its importance, and how it connects with other parts of the Constitution. Even though these explanations weren’t directly needed for the decision, they have helped shape how the basic structure doctrine is viewed and used in later legal cases. - Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
The court also talked about how fundamental rights relate to the directive principles of state policy. In some of its comments, it made clear that Parliament can’t use its power to change the Constitution in a way that violates fundamental rights. These comments, even though not the main focus of the decision, have helped judges understand how to balance personal freedoms with government policies. - Other Observations:
The court also made other comments about secularism, the preamble, and the role of the judiciary in protecting the Constitution. These remarks, while not the main reason for the decision, have influenced how these ideas are understood in Indian constitutional law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court made a major decision with a 7: 6 vote, introducing the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. This doctrine says that certain key parts of the Constitution, like democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law, cannot be changed by Parliament. The court also said that the power of judicial review is a necessary part of the Constitution’s basic structure and can’t be removed by Parliament through changes to the Constitution.
The Kesavananda Bharati case is important because it created the basic structure doctrine for the Indian Constitution. This doctrine states that some core aspects of the Constitution, including the Constitution’s supremacy, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, can’t be altered or ended by Parliament through constitutional amendments.
This idea has limited Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution and has helped keep the Constitution alive and relevant while keeping its main values and principles. The Kesavananda Bharati case has had a big impact on India’s constitutional growth, making it one of the most important cases in Indian constitutional law.
[1] Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 (SC)
[2] Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (Kerala Act 1 of 1964)
[3] Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845
