Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973): The Basic Structure Case

The basic structure doctrine is the constitutional principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973), that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 — including the Fundamental Rights — but it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's "basic structure" or essential features. Decided by a 13-judge bench and reported as AIR 1973 SC 1461, this remains the single most influential ruling on the scope of Parliament's amending power.

Background: From Golaknath to Kesavananda Bharati

The case reached the Supreme Court against the backdrop of a running conflict between Parliament and the judiciary over how far the amending power in Article 368 could reach. In Golaknath (1967), the Court had used judicial review to examine constitutional amendments and moved toward the view that Parliament's amending power had limits, particularly where Fundamental Rights were concerned. Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged land reform legislation that affected the mutt's property, framing the dispute as a question about the reach of Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) and, more broadly, about how far Parliament could go in amending the Constitution.

The Judgment: A New Limit on Article 368

A specially constituted 13-judge bench — the largest ever assembled by the Supreme Court — heard the matter and delivered its verdict on 24 April 1973. The Court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited: amendments can reach any provision, including Fundamental Rights, but no amendment can damage or destroy the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution. An amendment found to violate the basic structure would be treated as beyond Parliament's constituent power, regardless of the procedure followed under Article 368.

On the specific dispute before it, the Court held that the right to property was not part of the basic structure and could therefore be restricted by amendment. At the same time, the Court reserved to itself — and to the judiciary generally — the task of deciding, case by case, what does and does not qualify as part of the basic structure, since the Constitution's text does not itself list or define the term.

What Counts as the Basic Structure

The Constitution nowhere spells out a fixed list of "basic features." Instead, the content of the doctrine has been filled in gradually through Kesavananda Bharati and later judgments. Elements recognised as part of the basic structure at various points include:

Because judicial review is itself treated as part of the basic structure, courts have held that Parliament cannot pass an amendment that shields other amendments from judicial scrutiny.

Aftermath: Indira Gandhi's Case and the 42nd Amendment

The doctrine was tested almost immediately. In Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975), a clause inserted as Article 329-A, which placed the election of the Prime Minister and the Speaker beyond the jurisdiction of every court, was struck down as an amendment that damaged the basic structure. Parliament's response was the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which inserted clauses (4) and (5) into Article 368 declaring that there was no limitation whatsoever on Parliament's constituent power and that no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, including violation of Fundamental Rights.

That attempt to override the basic structure doctrine itself was undone in Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980). The Supreme Court struck down Article 368(4) and (5), holding that a limited amending power, judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles were themselves basic features. The Court reasoned that a body given a limited power of amendment cannot use that very power to convert itself into a body with unlimited power — doing so would allow Parliament to repeal or abrogate the Constitution altogether. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, later restored judicial review over constitutional amendments and undid the Emergency-era suspension of certain rights under Article 19.

The Doctrine After Minerva Mills

Later cases extended and applied the doctrine rather than revisiting its core holding. The Waman Rao case (1980) clarified that the basic structure test applies to constitutional amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda Bharati verdict — including amendments adding laws to the Ninth Schedule. S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994) treated secularism as part of the basic structure and held that a President's Rule proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, with the Union required to justify the material on which it acted. I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Ninth Schedule case, reaffirmed Waman Rao and held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 remain open to challenge if they damage the basic structure, tested against Articles 14, 19 and 21.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) is cited as AIR 1973 SC 1461 and was decided by a 13-judge bench.
• The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament's amending power under Article 368; it does not appear as a defined term in the constitutional text.
• The right to property was held not to be part of the basic structure in this case.
• The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) is linked to Article 368(4)-(5), later struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).

Mains

• Trace the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from Golaknath (1967) through Kesavananda Bharati (1973) to Minerva Mills (1980) and assess its role in balancing parliamentary sovereignty with constitutionalism.
• Examine how the basic structure doctrine has shaped the judiciary's power of judicial review over constitutional amendments, with reference to Minerva Mills and I.R. Coelho.

FAQ

What is the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati? It is the principle that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot amend it in a way that damages or destroys its basic structure or essential features.

Which bench decided Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala? A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest bench ever constituted by the Court, delivered the judgment on 24 April 1973.

Did Kesavananda Bharati define what the basic structure includes? No. The Constitution does not list basic features, and the Court in Kesavananda Bharati reserved to the judiciary the task of determining, in subsequent cases, what qualifies as part of the basic structure.

How did Parliament respond to the basic structure doctrine? Through the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which sought to remove all limits on Parliament's amending power and bar judicial review of amendments; this was struck down in Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980).

Is the right to property part of the basic structure? No. Kesavananda Bharati held that the right to property was not part of the basic structure and could be abridged by amendment; it was later removed from the list of Fundamental Rights altogether.

Quick Revision

• Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, decided 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench.
• Basic structure doctrine: Article 368 amending power is wide but cannot destroy the Constitution's essential features.
• Right to property held not part of the basic structure.
• Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) struck down Article 329-A; led to 42nd Amendment (1976).
• Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Article 368(4)-(5); judicial review and limited amending power held to be basic features.
• Waman Rao (1980) and I.R. Coelho (2007) applied the doctrine to Ninth Schedule amendments after 24 April 1973.
• S.R. Bommai (1994) held secularism part of the basic structure.

Sources

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 — Supreme Court of India Judgment
• The Constitution of India, Article 368 — Legislative Department, Government of India
• Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1789 — Supreme Court of India

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.