Kesavananda Bharati Case and Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution of India

All law aspirants should understand the Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution of India as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the well-known Kesavananda Bharati Case in 1973. It restricted the Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution of India to any extent. Let us explore more about the landmark Judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati case and the Doctrine of Basic Structure.

Kesavananda Bharati Case & Doctrine of Basic Structure

Kesavananda Bharati Case & Doctrine of Basic Structure: The Supreme Court interpret the Acts passed by the Parliament of India in the light of the Constitution of India. The Kesavananda Bharati case is one of the most important constitutional law judgments in India. If you are preparing for CLAT, AILET, SLAT, AIBE or another law entrance examination, this is a case you should understand rather than simply memorise.

The judgment is famous for establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine—the principle that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but it cannot use that power to destroy or alter its basic structure. The case was decided by a 13-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on April 24, 1973. It remains one of the most significant decisions on the relationship between Parliamentary power and constitutional supremacy.

For an entrance-exam aspirant, the case can initially seem complicated because it involves several constitutional amendments, earlier judgments and competing ideas about the power to amend the Constitution. But the central idea is actually quite simple:

Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy its basic identity. That single principle is the starting point for understanding the entire case.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement for Law Entrance Examination

Kesavananda Bharati Case: At a Glance

Candidates can see the Kesavananda Bharati Case highlights below:

The Supreme Court's official record identifies the matter as W.P. (C) No. 135 of 1970, decided on April 24, 1973, by a 13-judge Bench.

Background of the Kesavananda Bharati Case?

To understand why the case reached the Supreme Court, we need to go back a few years.

The dispute was not originally about the Basic Structure Doctrine. It arose from a challenge to certain land reform laws in Kerala.

Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a religious institution in Kerala, challenged laws that affected the management and property of the institution. His challenge raised questions about the protection of property and Fundamental Rights.

But by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the controversy had become much bigger.

The real constitutional question was:

Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution without any limitation?

This question had already been considered by the Supreme Court in earlier cases.

Why Were Earlier Supreme Court Judgments Important?

Two cases are particularly important for understanding Kesavananda Bharati:

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Court again upheld Parliament's constitutional amendment power.

But the position changed significantly with the Golaknath v. State of Punjab judgment in 1967.

Also Read: Article 21 and Related Landmark Judgements

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

In Golaknath, an 11-judge Bench held, by a narrow majority, that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in a way that took away or abridged them.

The decision created a major constitutional controversy.

If Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, what was the scope of its constitutional amendment power?

Parliament responded through constitutional amendments, including the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments.

The validity of these amendments became part of the dispute that eventually came before the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati.

What Was the 24th Constitutional Amendment?

The 24th Amendment Act, 1971, was particularly important.
It sought to affirm Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and made changes concerning Article 368.

The amendment also made it clear that the constitutional amendment power extended to different parts of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court therefore had to examine the scope of Parliament's power under Article 368.

What Was the 25th Constitutional Amendment?

The 25th Amendment Act, 1971, introduced changes concerning property rights and the relationship between certain Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights.

It inserted Article 31C, which originally sought to provide protection to laws implementing certain Directive Principles from challenges based on specified Fundamental Rights.

This raised another major constitutional question:

Can Parliament use a constitutional amendment to give greater priority to certain Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights?

The Court had to consider this issue alongside the larger question of Parliament's amending power.

Also Read: Article 19 and Related Landmark Judgments

What Was the 29th Constitutional Amendment?

The 29th Amendment Act, 1972, placed certain Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

The amendment therefore brought the validity of those laws into the constitutional dispute before the Supreme Court.

The case that began with a challenge involving property and land reforms had now become a much larger examination of constitutional power.

What Was the Main Question Before the Supreme Court?

The central question was:

What are the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?

The Court had to balance two competing ideas.

On one side was the argument that the Constitution must be capable of adapting to changing social and political conditions.

On the other was the concern that unlimited amendment power could allow Parliament to fundamentally change or even destroy the Constitution.

The Court's answer became the Basic Structure Doctrine.

What Is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

The Basic Structure Doctrine means that Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure or essential features.

This does not mean that constitutional provisions can never be changed.

Parliament has significant power to amend the Constitution.

The limitation is on the extent of that power.

In simple terms:

Amendment is allowed. Destruction is not.

The Supreme Court's later judgments have repeatedly explained that the Kesavananda Bharati decision established this limitation on the constitutional amendment power.

What Are the Basic Features of the Constitution of India?

One tricky aspect for law entrance examinations is that the Supreme Court did not provide one exhaustive, closed list of every element forming part of the basic structure.

Different judges identified different features.

Among the features identified in the judgments were:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Secular character of the Constitution
• Federal character of the Constitution
• Separation of powers
• Dignity and freedom of the individual
• Unity and integrity of the nation
• Rule of law
• Judicial review
• Independence of the judiciary

The Supreme Court has noted that the judges in Kesavananda Bharati were not completely unanimous on the precise list of basic features. However, the majority agreed that Parliament's amendment power was subject to a basic-structure limitation.

What Was the Final Judgment in Kesavananda Bharati?

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on April 24, 1973. The decision was extremely close.

A 7:6 majority held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.

Parliament can amend constitutional provisions, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot destroy the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

The Court therefore rejected both extremes.

It did not accept the argument that Parliament had unlimited amendment power.

At the same time, it did not completely prohibit Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights.

The result was a middle position:

The Constitution can change, but its fundamental identity cannot be destroyed.

Why Is the Basic Structure Doctrine Important?

Imagine that Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.

In theory, a sufficiently large parliamentary majority could attempt to remove judicial review, abolish democracy or fundamentally change the constitutional system.

The Basic Structure Doctrine places a constitutional boundary on that possibility.
It protects the Constitution not merely as a document but as a framework of governance.

The Supreme Court has subsequently described the doctrine as a foundational principle of constitutional law.

Kesavananda Bharati and Judicial Review

Judicial review is an important concept connected with the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The Supreme Court can examine whether constitutional amendments comply with the basic structure.

This reinforces the role of the judiciary as an institution capable of checking unconstitutional exercises of power.

The independence of the judiciary itself is recognised as part of India's constitutional basic structure.

For law entrance examinations, remember the connection:

Basic Structure → Limits on Amendment Power → Judicial Review → Constitutional Supremacy

Kesavananda Bharati and Article 368

Article 368 deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure for doing so. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is therefore inseparably connected with Article 368. A common exam trap is to assume that Article 368 gives Parliament unlimited power. It does not.

The basic structure limitation means that even a constitutional amendment passed using the prescribed procedure can be invalidated if it destroys or damages the Constitution's basic structure. The Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule through constitutional amendments after April 24, 1973 could be examined against the basic structure if they affected Fundamental Rights that form part of the basic structure.
This demonstrates how the doctrine continued to evolve through later cases.

Why Is Kesavananda Bharati Important for CLAT?

For CLAT, this case is useful not only as a factual question but also as a Legal Reasoning concept.

A passage could present a hypothetical situation in which Parliament passes a constitutional amendment attempting to:

• abolish judicial review;
• remove the federal character of the Constitution;
• eliminate democratic government;
• substantially damage Fundamental Rights; or

give unlimited power to one constitutional institution.

The question may then ask whether such an amendment is constitutionally valid.

A candidate who remembers only “Kesavananda Bharati = Basic Structure” may struggle with such a passage.

A candidate who understands the principle can apply it. That is exactly the kind of reasoning law entrance examinations seek to test.

Kesavananda Bharati: What Should Law Aspirants Remember?

For quick revision, remember this chain:

Kesavananda Bharati → 1973 → 13 Judges → Article 368 → Amendment Power → Basic Structure Doctrine

Then remember the core principle:

Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot destroy its basic structure.

Some important basic features to remember include:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Rule of law
• Judicial review
• Independence of judiciary
• Separation of powers
• Federalism
• Secularism
• Republican and democratic government
• Unity and integrity of India

The exact list is not exhaustive because the doctrine has developed through subsequent judgments.

This case is also important for the AIBE because it is one of the most important case in the India Legal History.

Also Read: How to Prepare for CLAT 2027 in 2 Months