Hey learners,
{tocify} $title={Table of Contents}
Case Summary
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1973) 4 SCC 225
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 13-Judge Constitution Bench (Largest ever in Indian history)
Date of Judgment: 24 April 1973
Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru (Head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala)
Respondent: State of Kerala & Another
Facts of the Case
Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which imposed restrictions on property ownership and management of religious institutions.
During this time, Parliament had also passed several constitutional amendments, particularly the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, expanding its powers and placing certain laws beyond judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati argued that Parliament did not have unlimited power to amend the Constitution, especially when such amendments violated fundamental rights.
Legal Issues
- Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?
- Can Parliament alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments were valid.
Arguments
Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati)
- Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute.
- Fundamental rights form the core of the Constitution and cannot be destroyed.
- If unlimited powers are given, Parliament could turn India into a dictatorship.
Respondent (State of Kerala & Union of India)
- Article 368 gives complete power to Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- People’s will, expressed through Parliament, is supreme.
- Land reforms and socio-economic justice required such amendments.
Judgment of the Court
The Supreme Court delivered a historic 7-6 majority judgment.
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
- However, it cannot alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
- The 24th Amendment was upheld.
- The 25th Amendment was partially upheld (subject to judicial review).
- The 29th Amendment (placing land reform acts in the Ninth Schedule) was upheld, but subject to the basic structure test.
Ratio Decidendi
The Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced, meaning:
- Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution.
- But it cannot change the essential features like democracy, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, and judicial review.
Legal Significance
- The Basic Structure Doctrine became a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
- Ensured that the Constitution remains supreme and protected from arbitrary amendments.
- Struck a balance between Parliament’s power to amend and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the Constitution.
- Widely regarded as the “Constitutional Magna Carta of India”.
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) remains the most influential constitutional case in India’s history. By introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental identity. This case continues to safeguard India’s democratic fabric.