Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine Explained

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine Explained

Introduction:

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is one of the most significant judgments in Indian Constitutional Law. This landmark verdict by the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which ensures that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental framework. This blog post explains the case’s facts, issues, judgment, significance, and also provides recommended books for law students preparing for competitive exams like CUET PG LLM, Judiciary, UPSC Law Optional, and more.

Facts of the Case

Kesavananda Bharati, head of a Hindu religious institution (Maṭha) in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which imposed restrictions on property ownership by religious institutions. He argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights, especially:

• Article 25 – Freedom of religion.
• Article 31 – Right to property (which was a fundamental right at that time).

The Kerala government defended the Act, claiming that Parliament has unlimited power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This raised the core legal question: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution without restriction, or are there inherent limits?

Issues Before the Court

• Extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Whether Fundamental Rights can be abrogated by constitutional amendments.
• Validity of laws enacted before 24 April 1973.
• Relationship between Articles 13 & 368.
• Parliament’s sovereignty versus judicial review limits.

Arguments

Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati)

• Parliament’s power under Article 368 is not absolute.
• Fundamental Rights form part of the Constitution’s core and cannot be destroyed.
• Unlimited amendment power undermines democracy.

Government (Union of India)

• Article 368 grants Parliament unlimited amending power, including over Fundamental Rights.
• Restricting this power interferes with legislative sovereignty.

          ┌─────────────────────────────┐
          │       Article 13            │
          │  "Any law inconsistent or   │
          │   in derogation of FRs is   │
          │        void"                │
          └───────────┬─────────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────▼─────────────────┐
          │      Ordinary Laws          │
          │ Subject to Article 13       │
          │ (can be struck down if      │
          │  violate Fundamental Rights)│
          └───────────┬─────────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────▼─────────────────┐
          │      Article 368            │
          │  Parliament can amend the   │
          │   Constitution, including   │
          │  Fundamental Rights         │
          └───────────┬─────────────────┘
                      │
          ┌───────────▼─────────────────┐
          │ Clause (4) of 24th Amendment│
          │ Clarifies that amendments   │
          │ under Article 368 are NOT   │
          │ "laws" under Article 13     │
          │ BUT must respect the        │
          │ Basic Structure Doctrine    │
          └─────────────────────────────┘

Judgment

• Decided by a 13-judge Constitutional Bench.
• Majority decision: 7:6.
• Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its Basic Structure.
• Laws before 24 April 1973 remain valid; post-24 April 1973 must comply with the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Clause (4) of the 24th Amendment upheld: constitutional amendments are not “laws” under Article 13 but must respect the Basic Structure.

The Basic Structure Doctrine – Key Features

• Supremacy of the Constitution: No law or amendment can override the Constitution’s core values.
• Rule of Law: No one is above the law.
• Separation of Powers: Independent functioning of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
• Judicial Review: Courts can strike down unconstitutional amendments.
• Fundamental Rights: Equality, liberty, and freedom of religion cannot be abrogated.
• Secularism: State neutrality in religious matters.
• Democracy: People’s sovereignty and free elections must be protected.
• Federalism: Balance of power between Union and States.

Significance of the Case

• Safeguards democracy by limiting Parliament’s unlimited power.
• Laid the foundation for cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India.
• Clarified retrospective application of laws.
• Reinforced the concept of constitutional morality.

Recommended Books for Constitutional Law

For deeper understanding of Constitutional Law and landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, here are some must-have books:

• M.P. Jain – Indian Constitutional Law
• D.D. Basu – Introduction to the Constitution of India
• The Constitution of India – Bare Act

Related Posts

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment is a cornerstone of Indian Constitutional Law. By formulating the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court ensured that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot damage its essential framework. This doctrine continues to safeguard democracy, judicial review, fundamental rights, and federalism in India.

Related Posts & Recommended Reads

• Boost your productivity and focus with these self-help books for law students, judicial aspirants, and young lawyers.
• Learn the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) and the Basic Structure Doctrine — a landmark judgment shaping constitutional law in India.
• Stay updated with the latest case law updates and important legal developments in India for lawyers and students.

These links help you navigate between essential posts for law students, judicial aspirants, and legal professionals — improving learning, awareness, and professional knowledge.