Keshvananda Bharti Case

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India’s on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution given in Article 368. The ‘basic structure doctrine’ was given in this case. It means that some core or basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute. Basic structure includes secularism, federalism, judicial independence, and the rule of law. This basic structure is not defined, but illustrated by various judgments of the Supreme Court, starting with the Kesavananda Bharti case. It serves as a check on arbitrary and excessive exercises of amending power by the legislature. This doctrine reinforces the principle that while the Constitution remains adaptable to evolving societal needs, its foundational values and essential structure remain inviolable, thereby upholding the rule of law in India.

When the Constitution of India was made by the Constituent Assembly, article 368 was added to allow the future Parliaments of India to amend the Constitution if need be. However, over time, there arose confusion on how much and what parts of the Constitution can actually be amended by the Parliament. In the A.K. Gopalan Case (1950), Supreme Court said that fundamental rights given in the Constitution can be amended to secure national security. In Sankari Prasad Singh Case (1951), Supreme Court said that power to amend under Article 368 is absolute meaning that anything can be amended. However, in the I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. Case (1967), Supreme Court held that power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not unlimited. It was held that the Fundamental Rights (Part – III) of the Constitution could not be abridged by a Constitutional amendment.

The Kesavananda Bharati case originated from Kerala's land reforms in the 1950s and 1960s, aiming to redistribute land to the landless and poor. The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 set limits on land ownership, allowing excess land to be acquired from owners by the government for distribution. This was challenged by Mr. Kesavananda Bharati. Meanwhile, India's Parliament had passed the 24th Amendment to the Constitution which aimed to restrict powers of judicial review. Subsequently 25th and 29th Amendments aimed to limit citizens' fundamental rights and grant Parliament broad authority to amend any part of the Constitution. These amendments were challenged by Sri Kesavananda Bharati for violating the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Was delivered on 24 April 1973. It was the largest bench of the Supreme Court consisting of 13 judges. The judgment was passed with a majority of 7:6 judges.

• The word ‘amendment’ in Article 368 did not include the power to repeal or destroy the Constitution. Amendment means allowing modifications but while maintaining its core identity.
• Supreme Court limited the Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution.
• Supreme Court reversed its decision from the Golak Nath case and said that Parliament has the authority to limit or revoke any of the Fundamental Rights till the time it does not alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Judiciary is the final authority to decide what is Basic Structure and whether an Amendment violates the Basic Structure.
• It was held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can be amended. However, the Preamble does not have legal effect of its own but its ideals are enforced in other parts of the Constitution.
• 24^th Amendment Act was held to be legal.

The basic structure doctrine states that the Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. The term 'basic structure' itself is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It was introduced by the Supreme Court for the first time in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. Since then, the Supreme Court has served as both the interpreter of the Constitution and the judge of all amendments proposed by Parliament, ensuring the preservation of its core tenets. Following are the features which are part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution:

1. supremacy of the Constitution,
2. republican and democratic form of government,
3. secular character of the Constitution,
4. separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary,
5. federal character of the Constitution
6. unity and integrity of the nation
7. sovereignty of India,
8. democratic character of the polity,
9. individual freedoms secured to the citizens,
10. mandate to build a welfare state

All living documents evolve, and the Constitution is a living document. It needs a balance between rigidity and flexibility which was established by the Basic Structure doctrine. Some have called this judicial activism. Judicial activism has impacted the political system by enforcing accountability on the executive and limits on powers. However, this doctrine is an invention of the Judiciary. Judiciary’s interpretation has practically amended the Constitution without actually following the process of Article 368. Some have said that this indirect amendment violates the spirit of the separation of powers which means that each organ of the government (Judiciary, Executive, Legislature) should do their own work.

Article 368 of the Constitution grants Parliament extensive amending powers covering all aspects. However, the Supreme Court has acted as a check on Parliament's eagerness to amend the Constitution with the adoption of the “Basic Structure Doctrine”. The court aimed to safeguard the original principles envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, asserting that Parliament cannot distort, harm, or modify the fundamental elements of the Constitution under the guise of amendment.

This was a significant step. Former Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati said that "Kesavananda Bharati is the greatest contribution of the Indian judiciary to constitutional law." It enshrined the principle that while the Constitution is amenable to change, its essential framework, embodying principles of democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law, remains immutable—a testament to the resilience of India's constitutional democracy.