Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Here’s a complete English explanation of the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — including Articles, background, judgment, and its significance.

Case Title:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

Year:

1973

Bench:

• 13-Judge Constitution Bench (the largest ever in Indian judicial history)

• Decision by 7–6 majority

Petitioner:

Swami Kesavananda Bharati,
Head of the Edneer Mutt (a Hindu monastery in Kerala)

Respondent:

State of Kerala

Background:

1. The Kerala Government passed the Land Reforms Act, which imposed restrictions on property and landholding.

2. The Act affected the property of the Edneer Mutt (a religious institution).

3. Swami Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition under Article 26 of the Constitution (freedom to manage religious affairs), challenging the law.

However, the case quickly evolved into a much broader constitutional question —

“Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?”

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

Key Issue:

Does Parliament have unlimited power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution,
or are there implied limitations to protect its “Basic Structure”?

Arguments

Petitioner (Kesavananda Bharati):

• Parliament’s power to amend is limited.

• Certain features of the Constitution — its basic structure — cannot be altered.

• Fundamental Rights form part of this basic structure.

Respondent (State of Kerala / Union of India):

• Parliament’s power under Article 368 is absolute.

• It can amend any provision, including Fundamental Rights.

• There are no implied restrictions on Parliament’s amending power.

Judgment:

Majority (7–6):

• Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368,
  BUT it cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

This doctrine means that:

Parliament’s amending power is wide, but not unlimited.
It cannot destroy the essential features (the “basic structure”) of the Constitution.

Examples of Basic Structure elements:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution

2. Republican and Democratic form of Government

3. Secularism

4. Rule of Law

5. Separation of Powers

6. Independence of Judiciary

7. Fundamental Rights

8. Federal Character of the Constitution

Summary Table:

Importance of the Case:

• It limited Parliament’s power under Article 368.

• It established that the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament.

• The Basic Structure Doctrine has since been used in many landmark cases, such as:

  • Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

  • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

  • Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

Conclusion:

“Parliament is powerful, but not supreme. The Constitution is supreme.”

The Kesavananda Bharati case preserved the spirit of Indian democracy by ensuring that the Constitution’s fundamental principles remain protected from arbitrary amendments.