- CJI S.M. SikriFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice J.M. ShelatFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice K.S. HegdeFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice A.N. GroverFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice P. Jaganmohan ReddyFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice H.R. KhannaFavored (Basic Structure - Pivotal Opinion)
- Justice A.K. MukherjeaFavored (Basic Structure)
- Justice A.N. RayOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Justice D.G. PalekarOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Justice K.K. MathewOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Justice M.H. BegOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Justice S.N. DwivediOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Justice Y.V. ChandrachudOpposed (Basic Structure)
- Constitution of India (Article 13, 14, 19, 21, 31, 31C, 368, Preamble)
- Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971
- Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971
- Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972
- Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (as amended)
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) (Considered)
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) (Considered)
- I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) (Overruled)
Arguably the most important case in Indian constitutional history, Kesavananda Bharati challenged the validity of several constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, and 29th) enacted by Parliament, largely in response to the Golaknath decision. The petitioner, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged these amendments and related state land reform laws affecting the mutt's property.
The case was heard by the largest-ever bench (13 judges) and examined the fundamental question: What is the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368? Specifically, could Parliament alter, abridge, or abrogate Fundamental Rights or even change the core identity of the Constitution?
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Kesavananda Bharati / N.A. Palkhivala)
- Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited.
- There are implied limitations; Parliament cannot destroy the "basic features" or "essential elements" of the Constitution.
- Fundamental Rights are part of these basic features and cannot be abrogated, although reasonable restrictions are permissible.
- The 24th, 25th (especially Article 31C), and 29th Amendments violate these basic features and should be struck down.
- The Golaknath decision, while perhaps incorrect in its reasoning about Article 13(2), reached the right conclusion about the inviolability of Fundamental Rights.
Respondent's Case (State of Kerala / Union of India)
- Article 368 confers unlimited power on Parliament to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- There are no implied limitations on the amending power; the only limitations are procedural.
- The concept of "basic features" is vague and subjective, leading to judicial uncertainty.
- The amendments (24th, 25th, 29th) were validly enacted to further socio-economic justice and overcome obstacles created by previous judicial interpretations.
- The Golaknath decision was wrongly decided and should be overruled.
Case Progression Timeline
Golaknath Judgment
SC rules (6:5) that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
February 27, 1967Parliament Responds: 24th Amendment
Amends Art 13 & 368 to explicitly empower Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution (incl. FRs) and clarifies amendments are not 'law' under Art 13.
November 5, 197125th Amendment
Amends Art 31 (compensation for property) and inserts Art 31C (giving primacy to certain DPSPs over Arts 14, 19, 31).
April 20, 197229th Amendment
Adds Kerala Land Reform Acts to the 9th Schedule, shielding them from FR challenges.
June 9, 1972Kesavananda Bharati Petition
Writ petition filed challenging Kerala Land Reforms Act and the 24th, 25th, 29th Amendments.
~1970, amended post-1972Marathon Hearing (68 Days)
The 13-judge bench hears extensive arguments on the scope of Parliament's amending power.
October 1972 - March 1973Judgment Delivered
By a 7:6 majority, SC lays down the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's amending power.
April 24, 1973In a historic and complex judgment comprising 11 separate opinions, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 7:6 majority, established the Doctrine of Basic Structure. It overruled the Golaknath decision's finding that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights.
However, the Court imposed a crucial limitation: while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it cannot alter or destroy its "basic structure" or "essential features." The Court upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment (affirming Parliament's power to amend) and the first part of the 25th Amendment (revising property compensation), but struck down the second part of Article 31C inserted by the 25th Amendment (which barred judicial review), and subjected the 29th Amendment (adding laws to 9th Schedule) to the test of the Basic Structure doctrine.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The 13 judges produced varied reasonings, but a majority converged on the principle of implied limitations. They reasoned that the word "amendment" in Article 368 implies improvement or modification, not destruction of the Constitution's core identity. While Parliament's constituent power was vast, it wasn't absolute. Justice H.R. Khanna's pivotal opinion bridged the gap: he agreed Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights (overruling Golaknath) but held that this power did not extend to destroying the Constitution's basic structure. The judges provided illustrative (but not exhaustive) examples of basic features, including supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, and federal structure. Fundamental Rights were also largely considered part of the basic structure, though the extent varied among judges.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Golaknath decision was overruled.
- Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- However, this power is not absolute and does not extend to altering the Basic Structure or framework of the Constitution.
- The Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, was held valid.
- The Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971, was held valid, except for the second part of Article 31C which excluded judicial review.
- The Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, was held valid, but laws added to the 9th Schedule under it would be subject to review based on the Basic Structure doctrine.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. While Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, this power is subject to the implied limitation that the amendment must not damage or destroy the essential features or basic foundation of the Constitution.