Background of the Case
The story begins with a series of constitutional amendments introduced by Parliament in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These amendments, particularly the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, were designed to give Parliament wide powers to make changes to the Constitution, especially to the fundamental rights. Parliament argued that since it was the elected representative of the people, it should have complete authority to decide the scope and content of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the judiciary had already held in earlier cases like Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) that Parliament could not amend or take away fundamental rights. This created a direct conflict between the legislature and the judiciary. The government of the day, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, wanted to push through land reform laws and other measures without judicial interference. It was in this backdrop that Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, filed a petition challenging the state’s land reform legislation. What started as a simple property dispute soon transformed into a constitutional battle about the limits of Parliament’s power.
The Central Question
The key question before the Supreme Court was deceptively simple: Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, or are there inherent limitations that cannot be crossed?
If Parliament’s power was truly unlimited, it meant that by a simple majority, the elected representatives could even abolish democracy, fundamental rights, or judicial review. If limitations existed, the Court had to identify what those limits were and how they could be enforced.
The Judgment
The case was heard by the largest bench in the history of the Indian judiciary — thirteen judges of the Supreme Court. After marathon hearings that lasted for 68 days, the Court delivered its judgment on 24 April 1973.
In a narrow 7–6 majority, the Court held that Parliament does indeed have wide powers to amend the Constitution, but those powers are not absolute. While Parliament can change, add to, or delete provisions of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.
This principle was revolutionary because it was not expressly written in the Constitution. Instead, the judges crafted it as a safeguard against the misuse of parliamentary power. The Court reasoned that if no limits were placed, a ruling majority could completely rewrite the Constitution, converting India into a dictatorship in the name of amendment.
What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The judgment did not provide a final list of what exactly constitutes the basic structure. Instead, it laid down a principle: any amendment that damages or destroys the core identity of the Constitution would be unconstitutional. Over the years, subsequent judgments have elaborated elements that form part of the basic structure, such as:
- The supremacy of the Constitution.
- The rule of law.
- The separation of powers between legislature, executive, and judiciary.
- Judicial review to check abuse of power.
- Federalism and the distribution of powers between Centre and States.
- Secularism and the principle of equality.
- Free and fair elections.
- Fundamental rights, especially those protecting liberty and dignity.
Thus, while Parliament retains flexibility to make necessary changes, it cannot touch these foundational principles.
Impact on Indian Democracy
The Kesavananda Bharati case was not just a legal ruling; it was a turning point in India’s democratic journey. At that time, there were genuine fears that Parliament, under political pressure, might completely rewrite the Constitution to consolidate power in the executive. By evolving the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Supreme Court drew a line that Parliament could not cross.
The doctrine has since been used in many cases to strike down constitutional amendments that sought to curtail judicial independence, undermine free elections, or restrict citizens’ rights. For example, in the famous Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975), the Court applied the basic structure principle to strike down an amendment that attempted to put the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny.
Why the Judgment Remains Relevant Today
Even after fifty years, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment remains the cornerstone of constitutional law in India. In a country with frequent political changes and shifting majorities, it ensures that the core of the Constitution remains untouchable. It reassures citizens that while Parliament can adapt the Constitution to meet new challenges, it cannot destroy the democratic framework that guarantees liberty and justice.
The doctrine has also become an inspiration for other democracies around the world. Countries like Bangladesh and Uganda have referred to India’s Basic Structure Doctrine while interpreting their own constitutional limits.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case is more than just a legal precedent; it is the lifeline of India’s constitutional democracy. By holding that the Constitution has an unalterable core, the Supreme Court ensured that no temporary political majority could hijack the destiny of the nation. It reaffirmed the idea that the Constitution belongs not to Parliament or the government but to the people of India.
The judgment stands as a constant reminder that while change is necessary in a living Constitution, it must never come at the cost of destroying its soul. The Basic Structure Doctrine, born out of this case, continues to protect India’s democracy, ensuring that the fundamental principles of liberty, equality, and justice remain eternal.