Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Background and Facts

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act which sought to impose restrictions on the management of religious property. The matter raised the fundamental question of whether Parliament could amend the Constitution so extensively as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. The case was heard by the largest bench ever constituted in the Supreme Court — thirteen judges — over 68 days of hearing, making it the longest constitutional case in Indian legal history.

Overruling Golak Nath

In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), an eleven-judge bench had held by a majority of 6 to 5 that Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution dealing with Fundamental Rights. This created a constitutional deadlock — Parliament responded by enacting the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments to restore its amending power. Kesavananda Bharati provided the Court with the opportunity to reconsider this position. The Court unanimously agreed that Golak Nath was wrongly decided insofar as it treated constitutional amendments as "law" falling within Article 13. Constitutional amendments are not ordinary law and cannot be struck down merely because they abridge Fundamental Rights.

The Basic Structure Doctrine — Birth of a Constitutional Principle

Having overruled Golak Nath, the majority of seven judges proceeded to impose a different and more nuanced limitation on Parliament's amending power. Justice Sikri CJI articulated what has since become the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law — that the Constitution has a basic structure or essential features which Parliament cannot destroy even by exercise of its constituent power under Article 368. The power to amend presupposes the survival of the Constitution itself. An amendment that destroys what it seeks to amend is a contradiction in terms.

The majority identified several features as forming part of the basic structure, though they declined to provide an exhaustive list. These included the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, the secular character of the Constitution, the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary, and the federal character of the Constitution. Justice Khanna, who provided the crucial seventh vote, held that while Parliament could amend any provision, it could not use Article 368 to abrogate or take away Fundamental Rights in their entirety.

The Significance of the Majority

The judgment was decided by the narrowest possible majority — 7 to 6. The six dissenting judges, led by Justice Ray who succeeded Justice Sikri as CJI, held that Parliament's amending power was unlimited. Justice Ray's minority view would have given Parliament unchecked power to alter the Constitution in any manner it chose. The slender majority in favour of basic structure has since been described as one of the most consequential decisions in the history of democratic constitutions anywhere in the world.

Post-Kesavananda Developments

The basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati was subsequently invoked in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) to strike down the 39th Amendment which sought to immunise the Prime Minister's election from judicial review. It was further developed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) where the Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that had sought to make the directive principles prevail over Fundamental Rights. Today, the basic structure doctrine stands as the most powerful judicial check on legislative supremacy in India.

Advocate's Note — Agarawal Associates

Kesavananda Bharati is not merely a constitutional law judgment — it is the foundation upon which every challenge to constitutional amendments must be built. In practice, whenever a constitutional amendment is challenged, the first question to ask is whether the amendment damages any feature that has been recognised as forming part of the basic structure. The Court has over the decades added to the list — judicial review, free and fair elections, rule of law, and the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 have all been recognised as basic structure elements. When briefing for a constitutional amendment challenge, I always begin with a two-column analysis: what the amendment does, and which basic structure element it arguably damages. If you can establish the latter, you have a serious case worth arguing before a Constitution Bench.