• To mark the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati verdict, the Supreme Court has dedicated a web page containing details of arguments, written submissions and the judgment in the historic case which laid down the path-breaking concept of the basic structure of the Constitution.

• In a historic verdict of a 13-judge bench, the top court, by a majority of 7:6, had laid down the concept of basic structure of the Constitution and consequently, restricted the amending power of Parliament holding it cannot touch upon the basic structure of the Constitution.

• The judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973. 

• The verdict became the basis of setting aside several constitutional amendments. 

• Kesavananda Bharati is remembered as a key figure in the fight to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law in India.

Precursors to Kesavananda Bharati verdict

• A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras (1950) dealt with the constitutionality of preventive detention laws. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such laws, holding that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including the right to life and personal liberty, were not absolute and could be curtailed by the state for reasons of national security.

• Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India and State of Bihar (1951) dealt with the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute and unfettered, and that the validity of a constitutional amendment could not be questioned on the ground that it violated any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

• Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965) dealt with the Constitutional validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court upholding the validity of the 17th Amendment held that the Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution including any fundamental rights. The Supreme Court in the judgment even stated that if the Constitution makers intended to exclude the fundamental right from the scope of amending power they would have made a clear provision on that behalf.

• I.C. Golak Nath & Others vs State of Punjab & Anrs (1967) dealt with the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not unlimited and that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution could not be abrogated or abridged by a constitutional amendment

These cases are important as they helped in shaping the interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. They also established the groundwork for subsequent cases, including Kesavananda Bharati, which has a lasting impact on the Indian legal system.

What was Kesavananda Bharati case about?

• The origins of the Kesavananda Bharati case can be traced back to the land reforms that were introduced in Kerala in the 1950s and 1960s. These reforms were aimed at redistributing land from large landowners to the landless and the poor.

• In 1963, the Kerala government passed the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which placed a limit on the amount of land that a person could hold. The Act provided for the acquisition of excess land from landowners and its distribution to the landless and the poor.

• Kesavananda Bharati was the head or pontiff of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala. In 1970, the government of Kerala imposed restrictions on the ownership of land held by religious institutions. The Edneer Mutt, headed by Kesavananda Bharati, challenged the constitutionality of the Act in the Kerala High Court. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the state government.

• In the meantime, the Parliament of India passed the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to curtail the powers of the judiciary and limit the scope of judicial review. The 25th and 29th Amendments were also passed, which sought to limit the fundamental rights of citizens and give Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution.

• Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition challenging the validity of these amendments, arguing that they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. This led to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which upheld the basic structure doctrine and placed limits on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.

The SC verdict

• The Supreme Court, in a 7-6 majority decision, held that the Constitution of India has a basic structure that cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment. 

• The top court held that the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and that it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. This has served as an important check on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.

• The Kesavananda Bharati case has been hailed as a landmark in the history of Indian constitutional law as it affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary in protecting the basic structure of the Constitution.

• The judgment laid down several principles that have become the bedrock of constitutional law in India. These include the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary. 

• It has also been instrumental in shaping the Indian judiciary’s approach to constitutional interpretation and the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

The verdict referred in other cases

• Several subsequent judgments relied on the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments brought about by the Parliament.

• The basic structure doctrine was invoked by the court in the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, in which there was a challenge to Article 329A, introduced in the Constitution through the 39th amendment in 1975. The amendment was an attempt to take Indira’s election in 1971 beyond judicial purview. The court struck down certain clauses in Article 329A, making the existing election law applicable to the election of the prime minister.

• It was referred to while deciding the Minerva Mills vs Union of India case, in which the constitutionality of the 42nd amendment, carried out by the Indira Gandhi government in response to the Kesavananda Bharati case, was challenged. Certain sections of the Article were struck down by the court as they were held to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

• More recently, the basic structure doctrine was invoked by the court as it struck down the law passed by the Parliament for the setting up of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC). A five-member bench held the law as unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution, which it said, includes the independence of the judiciary.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store