Kesavananda Bharati: The Case That Defined the Limits of Constitutional Amendment

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Citation: (1973) Supp SCR 1. [PDF]

Introduction

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark decision that significantly shaped Indian constitutional law. It revolved around the extent of the Indian Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, specifically concerning fundamental rights. The case is crucial for understanding the concept of the basic structure doctrine, which limits the Parliament's amending powers.

The case arose in response to a series of constitutional amendments, including the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which sought to alter the balance between fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. These amendments, particularly those relating to property rights and compensation, were challenged, leading to a major constitutional debate. The Supreme Court's decision in Kesavananda Bharati sought to clarify the scope of Article 368, which deals with the amending power of the Parliament, and its relation to Article 13(2), which prohibits the state from making laws that abridge fundamental rights.

The court's ruling established the basic structure doctrine, stating that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic or essential features. This doctrine acted as a check on the amending powers of the Parliament. The case also examined the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and the extent to which the latter could be used to justify laws that infringe upon the former. The court partially upheld the validity of Article 31C, which sought to protect laws furthering Directive Principles from challenges based on Fundamental Rights.

Case Summary

  1. The case was a challenge to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to the Constitution, which sought to alter the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights, and to change the legal concept of compensation for property acquisition.
  2. The 24th Amendment clarified that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, by amending Article 368.
  3. The 25th Amendment replaced 'compensation' with 'amount' in Article 31(2), giving Parliament greater power to set compensation for acquired property and limiting judicial review. It also introduced Article 31C.
  4. The 29th Amendment added several land reform acts of Kerala to the Ninth Schedule, thus making them immune to challenges under Part III of the Constitution.
  5. The central issue was whether the Parliament's amending power under Article 368 was unlimited or subject to inherent limitations, especially concerning fundamental rights and if the concept of 'law' under Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments.
  6. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments, but established the basic structure doctrine.
  7. The court ruled that while the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, it could not alter its basic or essential features.
  8. The court partially upheld the validity of Article 31C, stating that its first part was valid, while the second part was invalid.
  9. The case examined the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy and concluded that although both are vital to the Constitution, Fundamental Rights cannot be abrogated for the sake of Directive Principles.
  10. The court also addressed the question of the meaning of the word "amendment" within the context of the Constitution, whether it includes the power to repeal or completely alter existing provisions of the Constitution.

Study Guide

  1. Understand the historical context of the case, including the earlier constitutional amendments and judicial decisions that led to the Kesavananda Bharati case. Cases such as Sankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952), Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) and Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) are relevant as they dealt with similar questions regarding the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
  2. Examine the main arguments presented by both sides. Consider the arguments for and against the unlimited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Understand the petitioners' claim that Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments as 'law' and thus, they are subject to judicial review for possible violation of Fundamental Rights, as against the respondents' argument that the word 'law' under Article 13(2) only includes legislative enactments and does not extend to constitutional amendments.
  3. Analyze the concept of "basic structure" as it emerged in this case. This includes understanding what elements constitute the basic structure and why it is considered a limitation on the Parliament's amending power.
  4. Study the implications of the 25th Amendment regarding property rights and compensation. Understand the shift from 'compensation' to 'amount' and how it impacted the power of the state to acquire property.
  5. Examine the role of Article 31C in relation to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights. Understand how this article allowed laws furthering certain Directive Principles to be immune from challenges based on violations of Articles 14, 19, and 31.
  6. Explore the debate surrounding the meaning of "amendment" within the Constitution. Consider the arguments that "amendment" could mean only minor changes, as opposed to arguments that it could include repeal or alteration of fundamental features of the constitution.
  7. Analyze how the court addressed the relationship between the amending power under Article 368 and the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. Note how the court balanced the need for socio-economic reforms with the preservation of fundamental rights.
  8. Understand the difference between a rigid and flexible constitution. Understand how Article 368 makes the Constitution of India a rigid constitution.
  9. Study the significance of the 29th Amendment, particularly in the context of land reforms in Kerala. This includes understanding how the Ninth Schedule was used to protect land reform laws from judicial review.
  10. Analyze the court’s application of the principle of severability when examining provisions of law. Understand how the court invalidated parts of the laws that were violative of the Constitution while upholding the rest.

Rationale

  1. The court determined that the term 'law' in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments, meaning that the state cannot make a law (including a constitutional amendment) that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
  2. The court also considered the relationship between the amending power under Article 368 and the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. The court concluded that the Parliament could not use its amending power to destroy the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III, and that the amending power was subject to inherent limitations.
  3. The court established the basic structure doctrine. This doctrine states that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental or essential features. These features include democracy, secularism, and the separation of powers.
  4. The court noted that the amending power is a constituent power, not an ordinary legislative power. It is subject to special procedures. The procedure under Article 368 is more restrictive and exacting than the procedure for ordinary legislative enactments.
  5. The court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, recognizing that it had been passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Article 368. The 24th amendment clarified the Parliament's power to amend any part of the constitution, including fundamental rights by amending Article 368.
  6. The court considered the validity of the 25th Amendment, particularly the substitution of 'compensation' with 'amount' in Article 31(2). It concluded that the adequacy of the amount fixed could not be reviewed by the courts, but the amount itself had to have some rational basis or norm.
  7. The court examined the addition of Article 31C and ruled that its first part was valid while its second part was invalid. The first part allowed laws furthering the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) to be immune from challenge on the ground that it violates Article 14, 19 or 31. However, the second part, which stated that a law with a declaration that it is made to give effect to the policy of Article 39(b) or (c) could not be called in question in any court was struck down.
  8. The court also ruled that Article 31B is independent of Article 31A. Further, the inclusion of the Kerala Acts through the 29th Amendment was also declared valid.
  9. The court noted that the Constitution must be read as a whole and that the Preamble is an important guide for understanding it.
  10. The court observed that the Judiciary is a part of the State and that the exercise of judicial review is an instance of State action.

FAQ

Q.1. What is the central issue in the Kesavananda Bharati case?

Answer: The central issue is whether the Indian Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is unlimited, or subject to inherent limitations, particularly concerning fundamental rights.

Q.2. What is the "basic structure" doctrine?

Answer: The basic structure doctrine states that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental or essential features, such as democracy, secularism, and separation of powers.

Q.3. How did the 25th Amendment change the concept of property rights?

Answer: The 25th Amendment replaced the term 'compensation' with 'amount' in Article 31(2), allowing the government to set a fixed sum or principles for determining compensation for acquired property, thus limiting judicial review on whether that amount is adequate.

Q.4. What is the role of Article 31C?

Answer: Article 31C allows laws that further the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) to be immune from challenge based on violation of Articles 14, 19, or 31, creating a hierarchy where the pursuit of certain Directive Principles can override certain Fundamental Rights.

Q.5. What was the significance of the 29th Amendment?

Answer: The 29th Amendment added specific land reform acts from Kerala to the Ninth Schedule, making them immune to challenges under Part III of the Constitution, thus protecting land reforms from judicial interference.

Q.6. Did the court find the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to be valid?

Answer: Yes, the court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th amendments. However it also introduced the basic structure doctrine which would act as a limitation on the Parliament’s power of constitutional amendment.

Q.7. What did the court say about the term “law” under Article 13(2)?

Answer: The Court concluded that the term "law" under Article 13(2) included a constitutional amendment, as such the Parliament could not pass any law or any constitutional amendment, that violates Fundamental Rights.

Q.8. What is the difference between a rigid and a flexible constitution?

Answer: A rigid constitution has special procedures for amendments, often requiring more than simple legislative majorities. A flexible constitution can be amended more easily, sometimes similar to regular laws.

Q.9. What does the principle of severability mean?

Answer: The principle of severability allows the court to invalidate parts of laws that violate the Constitution while upholding the rest, if it is possible to separate the invalid and valid portions, ensuring that valid parts can stand.

Q.10. What did the court say about the relevance of the Preamble to the Indian Constitution?

Answer: The Court stated that the Preamble is an important guide while interpreting the Constitution, having a transcendental position and is used to understand underlying constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. It established the basic structure doctrine, which limits the Parliament’s amending powers and preserves the core values of the Constitution. This landmark ruling ensures that the Constitution cannot be altered beyond recognition by the Parliament. The case clarified the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and ensured that the former cannot be easily overridden by the latter. The case stands as a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more