Close
The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is, without doubt, one of the most significant judgments in the history of Indian constitutional law. This case did more than just resolve a legal dispute—it reshaped the Indian Constitution and its relationship with democracy and governance.
The heart of this case revolved around one central issue: How much power does the Parliament of India have to amend the Constitution? Can it alter fundamental rights? Can it entirely change the very structure of the Constitution? These questions were not just academic; they had massive implications for the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary and, ultimately, for the people of India.
In the 1970s, a period marked by political turbulence, the Parliament, led by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, sought to assert its power to amend the Constitution to implement social and economic reforms. The government justified these amendments as necessary for achieving social justice and economic equality. However, these changes brought them into conflict with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a spiritual leader from Kerala, filed a petition challenging the Kerala government’s attempts to impose restrictions on the management of his religious institution’s property. While the petition initially targeted state land reform laws, the scope of the case grew dramatically, becoming a battleground over the constitutional limits of Parliament’s amending power.
The case focused primarily on Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Before the Kesavananda Bharati case, two important cases had laid the groundwork: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967). In the Shankari Prasad case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, in the Golak Nath case, the Court reversed this position, declaring that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
This divergence in judicial interpretation set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the question became: Can Parliament amend even the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself?
In a decision that spanned over 700 pages and involved a 13-judge bench—the largest in the history of the Indian Supreme Court—the Court ruled by a 7-6 majority that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.”
This was the birth of what is now famously known as the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Court held that certain essential features of the Constitution, such as democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review, are so fundamental that they cannot be amended or destroyed by Parliament.
The Basic Structure Doctrine is crucial because it places limits on Parliament’s power. It ensures that while the Constitution can evolve and adapt through amendments, its core principles remain protected. This doctrine has become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, and courts have since used it to strike down numerous amendments that violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
The Kesavananda Bharati case reaffirmed the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution. It established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over constitutional amendments, thus preventing any potential abuse of parliamentary power. The doctrine acts as a check on the legislature and preserves the integrity of democratic governance.
Interestingly, this judgment was delivered in the backdrop of the growing power struggle between the judiciary and the executive during the Indira Gandhi era. Following the ruling, attempts were made by the government to curtail judicial power, but the Kesavananda Bharati judgment has stood the test of time as a safeguard against arbitrary rule.
Even decades later, the Kesavananda Bharati case continues to be cited in legal arguments and constitutional debates. It is a symbol of the delicate balance between flexibility and rigidity in constitutional law. The judgment also laid the groundwork for future cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the Basic Structure Doctrine was applied to strike down amendments that sought to weaken the judiciary’s role in election disputes.
In a democracy like India, where the Constitution is the supreme law, this case serves as a reminder that certain fundamental values are inviolable. The Kesavananda Bharati case not only shaped constitutional jurisprudence but also entrenched the principles of checks and balances in governance.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is more than just a case; it’s a beacon of constitutional protection. By limiting Parliament’s amending power and introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, this landmark judgment has preserved the integrity of the Indian Constitution. It strikes a necessary balance, ensuring that while the Constitution is flexible enough to adapt to changing times, its core values—those that reflect the very spirit of democracy—are safeguarded for future generations.
For legal scholars, practitioners, and citizens alike, the Kesavananda Bharati case is a reminder of the power and responsibility that come with constitutional democracy. Its lessons resonate not only in law books but also in the continuous quest for justice, equality, and the rule of law.
Also Read: What Is Contempt Of Court And Its Punishments?
Mr. Kshetry is dedicated to providing world-class legal services. he employ exceptionally talented lawyers with outstanding academic and personal achievements.
© Copyright Kshetry And Associates 2025. All Rights Reserved.
