Background of the Case

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.,
commonly known as the Kesavananda Bharati case, is a landmark case in which the Supreme
Court of India delivered in its judgement, the judicial principle of “Basic Structure”. This
principle talks about certain basic features of Indian Constitution which are unalienable.
The judgement shaped the Indian liberal democracy, as we know it today.
The Kesavananda Bharati case was the culmination of a conflict between the judiciary and
the government, then headed by Mrs Indira Gandhi. In 1967, the Supreme Court had taken an
extreme view, in the case of I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. and had
stated that the Parliament could not amend or alter any fundamental right. A few years
later, Indira Gandhi nationalised banks and made provisions for paltry sums in bonds
maturing 10 years later. In other move, she abolished the payment of privy purse, a promise
made by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in 1947 to the erstwhile rulers. Although the Court upheld
the move to nationalise banks, it struck down provision of paltry sums in bonds and
abolishment of privy purses.
Indira Gandhi, being displeased, introduced a series of Constitutional amendments that
nullified the Supreme Court judgment in Golak Nath, Bank Nationalisation and Privy Purses.
The nature of these amendments provided the parliament uncontrolled power to abolish or
amend any provision of the Constitution. This leap towards unfettered Parliamentary
supremacy was controlled by the Supreme Court through the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
Facts
Kesavananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in Kerala. In 1969, the
Kerala Government bought out the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act under which some of
the Mutt’s land was to pass on to government. Contesting this amendment, Kesavananda
Bharati moved to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of rights under
Articles 25 (Right to practice and propagate religion), 26(Right to manage religious affairs),
14(Right to Equality), 19(1)(f) (Freedom to acquire property) and 31(Compulsory
Acquisition of Property). The then Senior Advocate, Nani Palkhivala, while representing the
priest, extended the ambit of the case and directly contested the issue of the extent of
amending power.
Question before the Court
Whether the Parliament’s power to amend the constitution is unlimited? Whether the
Parliament, following the procedure of Constitutional Amendment under Article 368, alter,
amend or abrogate any part of the Constitution, to the extent of taking away Fundamental
Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution?
th
Also in question was the validity of the 24 Constitutional Amendment (which provided that
Parliament can amend any part of Constitution, including Fundamental Rights) and the 25 th
Constitutional Amendment (which provided that a law in fulfilment of a Directive Principle
of State Policy cannot be challenged on the grounds of Fundamental Rights, effectively
curtailing judicial scrutiny).
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution to
fulfil its socio-economic obligations guaranteed to the citizens under the Preamble subject to
the condition that such amendment won’t change the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution. While the 24th Constitutional Amendment was upheld in its entirety, the 1st and
2nd part of the 25th Constitutional Amendment were found to be intra vires and ultra vires the
constitution respectively.
The Supreme Court also explicitly laid down that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be
followed by the Parliament while amending any provision of the Constitution.
Impact
The judgment in this case was delivered on 24 th April, 1973, months before the emergency
was declared. The judgment proved timely and played an important role in India preserving
its democracy by keeping the government’s amending power under purview of the judiciary.
On 10th August 1975, the government passed an amendment that, among others, added
Article 329A, placing restrictions on judicial scrutiny of the post of Prime Minister,
effectively negating Allahabad High Court’s order invalidating Indira Gandhi’s election to
parliament. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain struck
down Article 329A for being in violation of basic structure.
Further in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Apex Court quashed the
amendments to Articles 31C and 368, holding them in contravention to the basic structure.
The said articles, inter alia, made impossible the judicial review of any parliamentary
amendment. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud wrote, “A limited amending power is itself a
Basic Structure of the Constitution.”

Although the Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure Doctrine as we know
it, it did not exhaustively define what actually constitutes “Basic Structure”. It was conferred
on Courts to decide what might constitute the basic structure in subsequent cases. Therefore,
the doctrine is, till date, still evolving.
Some Interesting Facts about the case
Kesvananda Bharati case holds the record for being the longest argued case in the history of
Indian Judiciary, with the arguments taking place for 68 days. It is followed by Ayodhya
dispute hearing that lasted for 40 days.
Kesvananda Bharati case is also famous for having the largest bench ever hear the case. A
bench of 13 judges heard this case. This is the only instance of a 13-judge bench hearing a
case.
Although the judgment is highly relevant and considered a win for Indian democracy,
Kesavananda Bharati, the primary petitioner in the case, lost the case and the validity of
Kerala Government’s law was upheld.