Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Basic Structure Doctrine

What were the facts of the Kesavananda Bharati case?

Swami Kesavananda Bharati headed the Edneer Mutt in Kerala. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969, allowed the State to take over some of the mutt’s land. In March 1970 he went to the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26 and 31 had been violated.

While the petition was pending, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitutional Amendments. These made it clear that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights, limited the right to property, and placed the Kerala land laws in the Ninth Schedule. The petition grew into a challenge to these amendments.

The case was heard for about five months by a bench of 13 judges, the largest in the Court’s history. Judgment came on 24 April 1973.

What legal questions did the Supreme Court decide?

The central issue was how far Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 extends. The Court had to settle whether that power is unlimited, and whether the 1967 Golaknath ruling, which said Fundamental Rights could not be amended at all, was correct.

• Does Article 368 give power only to follow a procedure, or also a power to amend?
• Can Parliament take away or reduce Fundamental Rights?
• Are there any inherent limits on amendments?
• Were the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments valid?

Need help with this? Read our guide to Ask a Lawyer a Free Question.

What did the court hold on the basic structure doctrine?

By a narrow 7–6 majority, the Court overruled Golaknath. It held that Parliament does have power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. But that power is not unlimited: Parliament cannot use it to damage or destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

The 24th Amendment was upheld. The Court also struck down the part of the 25th Amendment that barred courts from reviewing whether a law truly gave effect to certain Directive Principles, because that took away judicial review.

The judges did not agree on one complete list of basic features. The result was that the doctrine developed case by case. A summary signed by several judges recorded the majority view that the basic structure cannot be abrogated.

Why did the judges reason this way?

The majority reasoned that the word “amend” implies change, not replacement. A power to amend a Constitution cannot be read as a power to write a new one or to wipe out the identity of the existing one. The Preamble and the scheme of the Constitution show what its foundations are.

Another strand of thought was that if Parliament could amend anything, it could in theory end democracy or the Court’s own review powers by simple constitutional majorities. The judges wanted to preserve the Constitution as a stable framework while still allowing it to grow with the times.

Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion is widely regarded as decisive. He accepted wide amending power but held that it cannot change the Constitution’s basic structure.

Which features count as basic structure today?

Later Supreme Court decisions have recognised many features as part of the basic structure. The list is not closed, and courts decide each claim on its own facts.

• Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Secularism and federalism
• Separation of powers
• Judicial review, as in L. Chandra Kumar (1997)
• Free and fair elections, as in Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975)

How does the doctrine matter in 2026?

The doctrine is the Court’s main check on constitutional amendments. In Minerva Mills (1980) the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment. In 2015 the Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, finding they harmed judicial independence.

It has also been applied beyond amendments. In S.R. Bommai (1994) the Court used ideas like federalism and secularism to limit misuse of President’s Rule. Ordinary laws are tested against the Constitution directly, but constitutional amendments face this extra test.

Debate continues over whether unelected judges should be able to restrain elected legislators. That debate is part of why the case is still discussed in Parliament, courts and law schools.

What does the Kesavananda Bharati case mean for you?

For an ordinary citizen, the case means that core constitutional protections cannot be removed just because a government has a strong majority. If a law or amendment affects your basic freedoms, you can ask the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32 to examine it.

For students, remember the formula: Parliament can amend, but not destroy. Cite the case as Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 and note the 13-judge bench and 7–6 split.

If you have a rights-related problem and are unsure how to proceed, a short consultation with an advocate can help you choose the right remedy.

Why did the dissenting judges reject implied limits?

The dissenting approach treated constitutional amendment as different from ordinary legislation. On that view, Parliament exercising Article 368 was entitled to change even deeply important provisions, provided it followed the prescribed procedure. The Constitution expressly required special majorities and, for certain changes, State ratification. Reading additional substantive restrictions into the text risked replacing those express safeguards with judicial judgments about which constitutional choices were too important to change.

This disagreement was not simply about whether rights mattered. It concerned who should have the final authority to adapt constitutional arrangements. Supporters of implied limits feared lawful destruction of democracy; critics feared judicial control without a clear textual boundary. Understanding both concerns makes the case more useful than a slogan about courts defeating Parliament. The doctrine addresses the danger of constitutional destruction, while its critics question how reliably judges can identify that danger.

Can every unconstitutional law be challenged as basic structure damage?

A challenge to a constitutional amendment differs from a challenge to an ordinary statute. An amendment changes the constitutional standard itself, so the court asks whether it damages the Constitution’s essential identity. For ordinary legislation, the normal questions concern legislative competence and compliance with constitutional provisions. Merely describing an unpopular law as contrary to the basic structure does not replace the need to identify the applicable constitutional prohibition and explain the actual infringement.

Kuldip Nayar v Union of India (2006), concerning changes to Rajya Sabha election rules, illustrates this distinction. The Court rejected an attempt to treat the basic structure doctrine as a free-standing test for ordinary legislation. Basic features can still guide constitutional interpretation. But a careful pleading identifies the kind of instrument being challenged before selecting the test. This avoids confusing constitutional amendment review with the broader task of reviewing everyday government action.

How did Ninth Schedule review develop after Kesavananda?

The Ninth Schedule was designed to protect listed laws against specified Fundamental Rights challenges. That protection raised a difficult question: could Parliament avoid constitutional limits simply by placing a rights-restricting law inside the Schedule? In Waman Rao v Union of India (1981), the Court used 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda, as the dividing line for reviewing later Ninth Schedule insertions through the basic structure doctrine.

I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007) developed this approach further. Post-cutoff insertions are not automatically immune merely because the underlying law appears in the Ninth Schedule. The court examines the impact of the protected law on rights that form part of the basic structure. Not every rights infringement necessarily establishes basic structure damage. The important point is that the constitutional device used to confer immunity is itself subject to constitutional limits.

Does basic structure review make constitutional change impossible?

Most constitutional amendments do not attract a successful basic structure challenge. Adjustments to institutions, rights or governmental powers are not forbidden merely because they are substantial. The inquiry is whether the alteration damages an essential feature, not whether it changes something important. This distinction preserves room for democratic experimentation while preventing use of the amendment procedure to dismantle the constitutional framework within which democratic politics takes place.

The doctrine nevertheless attracts a serious predictability objection. Because there is no exhaustive list of protected features, governments and citizens may disagree about the permissible extent of reform. Supporters answer that a rigid list could invite ingenious evasions and fail to protect unforeseen threats. A strong assessment therefore considers the amendment’s practical consequences, the relevant constitutional provisions and the reasons given by the Court, rather than treating either institutional authority as automatically decisive.

How should you analyse an unfamiliar amendment problem?

Begin by identifying exactly what the amendment changes and which institution gains or loses power. Then separate procedural objections under Article 368 from substantive basic structure objections. A defect in the required majority or State ratification is different from an amendment that follows the correct procedure but destroys an essential feature. Finish by explaining the extent of the alleged damage and the remedy sought, rather than listing famous basic features without connecting them to the facts.