Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Case That Defined India’s Constitution

Few court judgments in India have shaped the nation as deeply as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This landmark decision of the Supreme Court did more than just resolve a constitutional dispute, it set the limits of Parliament’s power and ensured that the core principles of the Constitution could never be destroyed, no matter who governs the country. In simple terms, this case protected the soul of the Constitution.

Background: Why Did the Case Arise?

The story began when His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged certain land reform laws passed by the Kerala Government. These laws limited the property the Mutt could hold. To protect its property rights, Kesavananda Bharati filed a case under Article 26, which guarantees freedom to manage religious affairs.

But the matter soon became much larger. By that time, the Indian Parliament had passed a series of constitutional amendments giving itself wide powers to change fundamental rights.

The government believed Parliament should have complete authority to amend the Constitution even if that meant changing fundamental rights like the right to equality or property. This created a clash between Parliamentary supremacy and Constitutional supremacy.

The question before the Supreme Court became:

Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution even its basic structure?

The Courtroom Battle: The Largest Bench Ever

This case was heard by a 13-judge Bench, the largest in Indian history, reflecting its gravity. The arguments went on for 68 days, making it one of the longest hearings ever.

The government argued that Parliament’s power under Article 368 was unlimited. But the petitioners said the Constitution had certain fundamental features that could never be altered.

The Historic Verdict

On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a 7–6 majority judgment, a razor-thin decision that changed Indian constitutional law forever.

The Court held:

Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, BUT it cannot alter its basic structure.

This came to be known as the Basic Structure Doctrine, a doctrine that still protects India’s democracy.

What Is the “Basic Structure”?

The Court did not give an exhaustive list, but mentioned key principles that form the Constitution’s core, including:

• Supremacy of the Constitution

• Rule of Law

• Separation of Powers

• Judicial Review

• Democracy

• Secularism

• Federal Character of the Nation

• Fundamental Rights

This means Parliament cannot pass amendments that damage these principles, no matter what majority it holds.

Why Was This Case So Important?

Before this case, the Court’s approach kept changing:

• In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), the Court said Parliament could amend fundamental rights.

• In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court said Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all.

The government reacted by passing amendments to regain power, leading to Kesavananda Bharati.

The 1973 judgment struck a balance:

Parliament can amend laws, But it cannot destroy the Constitution’s identity. This ensured that no government could turn India into a dictatorship by changing the Constitution’s foundations.

Connection With Later Events

The Basic Structure Doctrine proved crucial during the Emergency (1975–1977), when the government attempted to silence courts and centralize power.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court again relied on the doctrine to strike down parts of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, stating that:

Limited amending power itself is part of the basic structure.

This protected democracy at a critical moment.

Criticism and Praise

Some critics argue the doctrine gives too much power to judges, letting them overrule Parliament. However, many believe it acts as a constitutional safety valve, preventing abuse of power.

Even decades later, courts across the world admire this doctrine as a unique Indian contribution to constitutional law.

Impact on Indian Democracy

Thanks to Kesavananda Bharati:

• Fundamental rights cannot be wiped out

• The Constitution remains supreme, not Parliament, not the Executive

• Judicial review is protected

• Citizens have a safeguard against authoritarian amendments

This case strengthened the Constitution and gave India long-term democratic stability.

A Case Beyond One Man

Ironically, Kesavananda Bharati did not win his property dispute. But his petition led to a doctrine that safeguards the rights of every Indian citizen today.

He later remarked that he never expected his case to become so historic, yet his name is now permanently etched into India’s legal history.

Conclusion: The Guardian of India’s Constitution

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is not just a legal decision, it is a guardian of India’s democracy. By ensuring that Parliament cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution, the Supreme Court preserved the vision of the Constitution’s framers.

In a world where power can easily be misused, this case stands as a reminder that freedom must be protected not only by laws but by principles that cannot be compromised.

The Basic Structure Doctrine is, therefore, India’s constitutional backbone, steady, protective, and essential.