Keshavananda Bharathi vs State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461)

Introduction

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is the landmark Supreme Court case that crystallized the basic structure doctrine, holding that while Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is vast, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental framework. The petition, brought by the head of the Edneer Mutt challenging Kerala’s land reforms and, subsequently, the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, led a 13‑judge bench to a narrow 7–6 decision that preserved judicial review and core constitutional principles even as it upheld Parliament’s broad amending authority. The ruling, often called the “Fundamental Rights Case,” recalibrated the balance among the branches of government by safeguarding essential features such as constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, federalism, and fundamental rights, while permitting socio‑economic reforms within those boundaries.

statement of the case

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, challenged Kerala’s land reform measures that sought to acquire and limit the Mutt’s property, filing a writ petition under Article 32 alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, and 31; while the petition was pending, Parliament enacted the 24th and 25th Amendments expanding amendment powers and curtailing judicial review over certain socio‑economic laws, and the State secured inclusion of the impugned laws in the Ninth Schedule via the 29th Amendment, prompting a 13‑judge bench to frame the central issues as whether Article 368 confers unlimited constituent power, whether constitutional amendments are subject to substantive limits, and whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights and insulate laws from review—questions that required reconciling property and religious freedoms with land reform and the scope of Parliament’s amending power.

judgement

Judgment: In a 7–6 decision, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power under Article 368 extends to amending any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but this power is limited by the Constitution’s “basic structure,” which cannot be altered or destroyed; applying this limit, the Court upheld the 24th Amendment in full, sustained the first part of the 25th Amendment while reading it down to preserve judicial review, and struck down its second proviso to the extent it excluded review, thereby affirming wide amending authority subject to inviolable core features such as constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, federalism, and judicial review.

impact on constitution and polity

Judgment: In a 7–6 decision, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is wide enough to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but not so wide as to alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure, thereby establishing the basic structure doctrine and placing substantive limits on constituent power.

Core holdings

Parliament may amend any provision, but amendments that damage essential features—such as constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, and the integrity of Fundamental Rights—are unconstitutional.
The 24th Amendment was upheld in full, affirming Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and clarifying the procedure under Article 368.
The first part of the 25th Amendment (giving primacy to certain Directive Principles in property-related takings) was sustained but read down to preserve judicial review and prevent exclusion of courts.
The second part/proviso that sought to bar judicial review over the determination of “amount”/compensation was struck down to the extent it ousted courts.
Judicial review itself was recognized as part of the basic structure, ensuring that courts can test constitutional amendments and ordinary laws against fundamental, unamendable principles.

Effect of the ruling

The decision reconciled socio‑economic reform with constitutionalism: Parliament retains broad capacity to pursue reforms, but cannot transgress the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
It overruled earlier implications of unlimited amending power, while partially harmonizing with prior concerns from Golaknath by creating a durable doctrinal limit rather than a blanket bar on amending rights.
The case became the anchor for later rulings (e.g., Indira Gandhi election case, Minerva Mills) that invalidated attempts to erode core constitutional features, shaping the modern separation of powers in India.

conclusion

Kesavananda Bharati ultimately marked a constitutional settlement that balanced transformative legislative power with inviolable constitutional fundamentals: by affirming a broad Article 368 amending power yet entrenching the basic structure as an unamendable core, the Court preserved space for socio‑economic reform while safeguarding constitutional supremacy, judicial review, and institutional equilibrium—turning a moment of executive‑legislative‑judicial conflict into a durable framework for rights‑conscious governance.