Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The case involved a detailed examination of Articles 368, 13, and 31, and clarified that constitutional amendments post-1973 need to adhere to the basic structure principles ["Nagubai Ammal VS B. Snama Rao - Supreme Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of Indian constitutional law, few cases have reshaped the nation's legal landscape as profoundly as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Often simply referred to in searches like kesavananda bharti, this landmark Supreme Court judgment introduced the revolutionary doctrine of the basic structure, ensuring that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute. This decision safeguards the Constitution's core identity against radical changes, balancing legislative authority with judicial oversight. Whether you're a law student, legal professional, or curious citizen, understanding this case is essential to grasping modern Indian jurisprudence.
The Kesavananda Bharati case emerged amid tensions between the judiciary and Parliament in the early 1970s. Kesavananda Bharati, the pontiff of Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged land reform laws that encroached on his property rights. This petition snowballed into a broader examination of Parliament's amending powers, particularly after the 24th, 25th, and 42nd Constitutional Amendments aimed to curtail fundamental rights and judicial review.
The 25th Amendment, for instance, sought to shield certain laws from judicial scrutiny by placing them in the Ninth Schedule. The Supreme Court, in a historic 13-judge bench decision (7:6 majority), held that while Parliament's amending power is wide, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution's fundamental features or core identityState Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362. As the Court articulated, the Constitution has an implied limitation on the amending power, known as the doctrine of the basic structure State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
The doctrine identifies inviolable features of the Constitution, including:- Supremacy of the Constitution- Republican and democratic form of government- Secularism- Separation of powers- Federalism- Sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India- Rule of law- Judicial review- Fundamental rights (in essence)
The Court clarified: certain fundamental features, such as the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, are part of the basic structure and cannot be amended or abrogated State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362. Amendments under Article 368 are permissible but must not damage or destroy the basic structure State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
In a nuanced ruling, the majority opined that the Constitution is a living, organic document, and its essential features—like democracy, secularism, and judicial review—are protected. Chief Justice Sikri and others emphasized that Parliament lacks plenary power to rewrite the Constitution's essence. This overruled parts of earlier cases like Golaknath (1967) while evolving the law.
The judgment's significance lies in empowering judicial review as a bulwark against unconstitutional amendments, even those passed via the prescribed process. Amendments which seek to obliterate or alter these core features are unconstitutional State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
The basic structure doctrine has been reaffirmed and expanded in later cases:- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Extended protection to free and fair elections.- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, holding that Parliament cannot amend or alter the core principles or essential features of the Constitution I. R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. VS State Of T. N. - 2007 1 Supreme 137State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
These rulings underscore the doctrine's role in preserving the Constitution’s identity, continuity, and fundamental principles State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
The doctrine's influence permeates various domains. In land acquisition matters, courts have invoked it to uphold constitutional limits. For example, Utilization of land, acquired under the Act, 1894 cannot be faulted in view of the law laid down in Keshavananda Bharathi V. State of Kerala Enkepally Girni Manikyam vs The Chairman AND Managing Director - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 25660. Similarly, in challenges to legislative competence, It is only if a legislation is found to lack in legislative competence, or is found to contravene any of the provisions of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution, that it cannot escape the vice of unconstitutionality (citing Kesavananda Bharati), as noted in multiple judgments Subramanian Swamy VS State of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 179Subramanian Swamy VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 203Rural Litigation And Entitlement Kendra VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 162.
In judicial review contexts, the doctrine protects High Courts' powers under Articles 226 and 227: The power of judicial review and superintendence conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by constitutional amendments or legislation National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Gauri Roy - 2005 Supreme(Gau) 238.
Even in insolvency and property disputes, echoes appear, such as references linking Articles 14, 19, and 21 to the basic structure post-Kesavananda SMT HAR NARAINI DEVI AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Recent cases, like the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) challenge, struck down the 99th Amendment for undermining judicial primacy—a basic feature SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - 2015 8 Supreme 65.
Not all amendments are barred:- Those not altering core identity are valid.- The doctrine is judicially inferred, not explicit, and evolves via interpretation State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.
Limitations include:- No power to destroy the Constitution’s basic features State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362.- Applies post-24.04.1973 (Kesavananda date) SMT HAR NARAINI DEVI AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
For legislators and drafters:- Scrutinize amendments against basic structure.- Respect judicial review to maintain integrity.
In practice, this doctrine has checked executive overreach, as in Minerva Mills, where limits on rights were invalidated I. R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. VS State Of T. N. - 2007 1 Supreme 137. It ensures balance amid political flux.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information on the Kesavananda Bharati case and basic structure doctrine. It is not legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for specific matters.
This enduring legacy reminds us: the Constitution evolves, but its essence endures. For deeper dives, explore the full judgment or cited references.
References:1. State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362: Core Kesavananda Bharati judgment.2. I. R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. VS State Of T. N. - 2007 1 Supreme 137: Minerva Mills and expansions.3. Other sources as inline cited.
#KesavanandaBharati #BasicStructure #IndianConstitution
Union of India : AIR 1981 SC 271, wherein, considering their earlier decision in Keshavananda Bharti v. Stat of Kerala : AIR 1973 SC 1461, the court held: ... 2. ... When this triangle of Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 is sought to be eliminated not only the essence of right test but also the rights test has to apply, particularly when Keshavananda Bharti and Indira Gandhi cases have expanded the scope of basic structure to cover even some of the ... Coelho (supra) itself to be because on this date the j....
Union of India: AIR 1981 SC 271, wherein, considering their earlier decision in Keshavananda Bharti v. ... When this triangle of Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 is sought to be eliminated not only the 'essence of right' test but also the 'rights test' has to apply, particularly when Keshavananda Bharti ... It is clear from the above that both the decisions of the Supreme Court apply to constitutional amendments after 24.04.1973, i.e., after the decision in Keshavananda Bhart....
The Directive Principles in the constitution cannot be treated as merely ornamental, as held by the Supreme Court in keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225, Minerava Mills v. Union of India, air 1980 S. C. 1789 and Unnikrishnan v. State of A.
It will also be remembered that under the partition Keshavananda and Brahmananda each got two vacant sites in full quit of their shares. It appears from Ex. ... If it is not, it isequally indisputable that the appellants as purchasers of the equity of redemption from Keshavananda have a right to redeem the mortgage dated 1-9-1918, and not having been impleaded in O. S. ... No. 100 of 1919-20 on 2-8-1928 is void and inoperative, as the Official Receiver in whom the estate of Keshavananda had vested on 19-2-1926 was not a party to the sale ....
Utilization of land, acquired under the Act, 1894 cannot be faulted in view of the law laid down in Keshavananda Bharathi V. State of Kerala1. ... As per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 there is no provision to allot the surplus land after completion of land acquisition proceedings and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharathi (1 supra) 9.
Chandra Kumar (supra) goes against the decision of the larger Constitutional Bench rendered in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225, for in Keshavananda Bharati (supra), points out by Mr. ... Somik Das, contrary to the majority view expressed in Keshavananda Bharati (supra), cannot be followed and it is the law laid down in Keshavananda Bharati (supra), which shall prevail. ... 16. In short, what is contended by Mr. ... Somik Das, on behalf of some of the Respondents, that it is this mino....
Of the three, the decision of the Special Bench of 13 Judges in Keshavananda Bharati's case is the pioneering decision on the subject. ... He referred to paragraph 492 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati's case (supra) containing the conclusions of S. M. Sikri C. ... In the Keshavananda Bharati's case it was also held that the objective specified in the Preamble contained the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be in exercise of the power under Article 368. ... In three historic Judgments the Hon'ble ....
He said that “all constitutional amendments made after the decision in Keshavananda Bharti’s case would have to be tested by reference to the basic structure doctrine, for Parliament would then have no excuse for saying that it did not know the limitation on its amending powers”. ... Acts and Regulations which are or will be included in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 will not receive the protection of Article 31B for the plain reason that in the face of the judgment in Kesavanand Bharti (supra) there was no justification for making additi....
KESHAVANANDA S/O SRI. K.N.
Bharti v. ... But, I find myself in the same predicament in which the learned Chief Justice found himself in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala. ... For us, it has been said in Kesavananda Bharti (p. 991), they constitute the ark of the constitution. ... The ratio decidendi of Keshavananda Bharti’s case, according to Mr. ... Therefore, after the decisions in Keshavananda Bharati’s case and Smt.
v. E.I.T.A. India Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 239; Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1643; and McDowell & Co. (supra) ). It is only if a legislation is found to lack in legislative competence, or is found to contravene any of the provisions of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution, that it cannot escape the vice of unconstitutionality (State of West Bengal and Ors.
v. E.I.T.A. India Ltd. and Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 239 ; Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala,1973 AIR SC 1643 ; and McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCR 721) . It is only if a legislation is found to lack in legislative competence, or is found to contravene any of the provisions of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution, that it cannot escape the vice of unconstitutionality ( State of West Bengal and Ors.
The power to legislate is given to the appropriate Legislature by Article 246 of the Constitution. Clause (3) of Article 246 stipulates that, subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (called the State List). v. E.I.T.A. India Ltd. and Ors., 2003 5 SCC 239 ; Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala,1973 AIR(SC) 1643 ; and State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. McDowell & Co., 1996 3 SCR 721) . It is true that, if ....
He felt that the Government should consider following the model of the Appointments Commission as suggested by the Justice Venkatchaliah Commission that gave dominance to the judiciary in the appointment process. He stated that composition of the Commission is the basic issue, and a Commission with non-Judge domination would not be viable in India. …………………..” 21. This is what the minutes record:-- Constitutional Expert and Senior Advocate, Shri Fali Nariman stated that it is important to remember the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. The basic structure do....
The said decision interpreted the 25th amendment and the word “amount” and so held that the Court could still interfere where the amount fixed was lesser or where the principle for determination of the same were not relevant. The 25th amendment of the constitution was also subjected to judicial review in the case of Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) SCC 225.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
