The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **“Basic Structure Doctrine”** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliament’s amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **“Basic Structure Doctrine”** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliament’s amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **“Basic Structure Doctrine”** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliament’s amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The case arose from a challenge by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu monastery in Kerala, against state land reform laws that restricted the management of religious property, alleging violations of fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19(1)(f), and 31. The broader issue was the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, particularly after the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which sought to curb judicial review and secure land reforms.
Historical Context: The case was a culmination of a power struggle between the judiciary and the legislature, evident in earlier cases like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) (upholding unrestricted amending power), Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) (reaffirming parliamentary supremacy), and Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) (limiting amending power by holding fundamental rights unamendable). The 24th Amendment (1971) was enacted to overturn Golaknath, asserting that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Key Findings of the Judgment
Decision: In a 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments but introduced the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not absolute. While Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine: The majority, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, and H.R. Khanna, did not exhaustively define the basic structure but identified elements like:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Republican and democratic form of government
Secularism
Separation of powers
Federalism
Fundamental rights (though not all rights are part of the basic structure)
Judicial review
Key Opinions:
Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion was pivotal, striking a balance by recognizing Parliament’s amending power while limiting it to preserve the Constitution’s core identity.
The minority view (Justices A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, D.G. Palekar, S.N. Dwivedi, and Y.V. Chandrachud) argued for unrestricted parliamentary power, viewing the majority’s doctrine as judicial overreach.
Outcome for the Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati’s specific challenge to the Kerala land reform laws was dismissed, as the Court found the laws did not violate the basic structure.
Significance in Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence
Establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine:
The doctrine is the most significant contribution of the case, acting as a judicial check on Parliament’s amending power. It ensures that the Constitution’s core principles remain inviolable, preserving its identity and preventing authoritarian or arbitrary amendments.
Impact: The doctrine has been applied in subsequent cases to strike down amendments or laws that threaten the Constitution’s essence. For example:
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment, which shielded election disputes of high officials from judicial review, as it violated the basic structure (judicial review and free elections).
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unfettered amending power and restricted judicial review, reinforcing the basic structure doctrine.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court used the doctrine to protect secularism and federalism, limiting misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Judicial Review as a Core Principle:
The case entrenched judicial review as a fundamental feature of the Constitution, empowering the judiciary to scrutinize constitutional amendments. This shifted the balance of power, establishing the Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution.
Critical Analysis: While this strengthened constitutionalism, critics argue it grants excessive power to an unelected judiciary, potentially undermining democratic will. Supporters, however, view it as a necessary safeguard against majoritarian excesses.
Balancing Parliamentary Sovereignty and Constitutional Supremacy:
The judgment reconciled the tension between Parliament’s amending power and the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional values. By allowing amendments but limiting their scope, it preserved democratic flexibility while ensuring stability.
Impact: This balance has shaped India’s constitutional evolution, preventing amendments that could erode democracy, secularism, or federalism, while allowing progressive reforms like those for affirmative action or land reforms.
Protection of Fundamental Rights:
Although the Court held that fundamental rights could be amended, it clarified that their essence forms part of the basic structure. This nuanced approach ensures that core rights (e.g., equality, liberty) are protected without freezing the Constitution’s adaptability.
Example: In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule (shielded from judicial review) could still be tested if they violated the basic structure, particularly fundamental rights like equality.
Global Influence:
The basic structure doctrine has inspired constitutional courts worldwide, notably in Bangladesh (Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh, 1989) and Pakistan, where similar doctrines limit parliamentary power to protect constitutional frameworks.
Significance: It positions India’s judiciary as a global leader in constitutional innovation, contributing to comparative constitutional law.
Evolution of Constitutional Interpretation:
The case marked a shift toward a purposive interpretation of the Constitution, focusing on its spirit and underlying principles rather than a literal reading. This has guided subsequent judicial activism in areas like public interest litigation and environmental protection.
Criticism: The undefined nature of the basic structure has been criticized for vagueness, allowing judicial subjectivity. Different benches have identified varying elements (e.g., rule of law, equality), leading to debates about consistency.
Critical Analysis
Strengths:
Safeguard Against Authoritarianism: The doctrine protects against potential misuse of parliamentary power, as seen during the Emergency (1975–77), when the 42nd Amendment sought to curtail judicial oversight.
Dynamic Framework: By not exhaustively defining the basic structure, the Court allowed flexibility for future benches to adapt the doctrine to new challenges, ensuring its relevance.
Constitutional Stability: The doctrine ensures the Constitution’s core identity endures, balancing change with continuity.
Weaknesses:
Judicial Overreach: Critics argue the doctrine gives the judiciary unchecked power to define the Constitution’s limits, potentially undermining parliamentary sovereignty. The 7:6 split in the judgment reflects this contentiousness.
Vagueness: The lack of a clear definition of the basic structure risks inconsistent application, as seen in debates over whether specific rights or principles (e.g., welfare state) are included.
Tension with Democracy: By limiting Parliament’s amending power, the doctrine can be seen as anti-democratic, prioritizing judicial wisdom over elected representatives’ decisions.
Lasting Impact
Constitutional Amendments: The doctrine has been invoked to scrutinize amendments, ensuring they align with the Constitution’s core principles. It has shaped debates on amendments like the 99th (NJAC, struck down in 2015) and the 103rd (reservation for economically weaker sections, upheld in 2022).
Judicial Activism: The case emboldened the judiciary to expand its role in protecting constitutional values, leading to landmark rulings in areas like environmental law (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) and human rights.
Emergency and Beyond: During the Emergency, the doctrine provided a framework to resist constitutional erosion, as seen in Indira Nehru Gandhi. Post-Emergency, it has guided the judiciary in upholding democratic norms.
Academic and Global Relevance: The doctrine is a subject of extensive study in constitutional law, influencing discourse on constitutionalism and judicial review globally.

Keshavananda Bharti is the landmark judgment that established the amendability of the basic structure of the constitution, ensuring that the fundamental features of the constitution remans intact.

the significance is that the parliament can amend the constitution but not the basic structure which came through the cases .

Keshavananda Bharti is the landmark judgment that established the amendability of the basic structure of the constitution, ensuring that the fundamental features of the constitution remans intact.

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the most significant judgments in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It fundamentally shaped the relationship between the Parliament’s amending power and the Constitution’s basic structure, becoming a cornerstone of constitutional law in India.
Background and Context of the case :
The case arose when Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as it affected the mutt’s property.
The challenge was ultimately against the validity of constitutional amendments (especially the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments) that curtailed Fundamental Rights.
It came in the wake of Parliament asserting its supremacy, especially after the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Golaknath (1967) (which had restricted Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights) and various land reform litigations.
Issues Before the Court :
1. Does Parliament have unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution?
2. Can Parliament amend or abridge Fundamental Rights?
3. Is there any implied limitation on the power of amendment?
Judgment Summary :
The case was heard by the largest-ever 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court
The majority held that:
- Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or essential features of the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine was formally established by this case.
Significance in Constitutional Jurisprudence

1. Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine
This doctrine became the most fundamental limitation on Parliament’s amending power. It ensured that while the Constitution is flexible and can evolve, its core identity remains intact.This was a middle path between rigid and flexible constitutionalism.
2. Reinforcement of Judicial Review
The decision reaffirmed that the Supreme Court has the power to review and strike down constitutional amendments if they violate the basic structure. It significantly empowered the judiciary to act as the protector of the Constitution.
3.Limitation on Parliamentary Sovereignty:Parliament is not sovereign like the British Parliament. Its power is limited by the Constitution itself — especially the basic structure. This ensured checks and balances and avoided authoritarianism.