Since the judgement, the Supreme Court has expanded the basic structure doctrine, striking down amendments that violate it.
Published Apr 23, 2025 | 11:00 AM ⚊ Updated May 24, 2025 | 7:41 PM
Indian judiciary. (iStock)
Synopsis: Even after 50 years, the Kesavananda Bharati case remains a guiding light — a constitutional lighthouse — for cases like this, exploring the limits and possibilities of India’s federal structure.
Soon after the Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against state Governor RN Ravi, many state governments and political observers hailed it as a landmark decision for Indian federalism. The ruling, which sets a timeframe for Governors and the President to act on Bills, sparked reactions from some politicians.
Surprisingly, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, a constitutional officeholder, joined the criticism, acting like a political campaigner. He attacked the Supreme Court, describing its use of Article 142 as “nuclear missiles against democratic forces.”
His remarks drew sharp criticism, notably from DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson, who represented the Tamil Nadu government. Wilson rebutted, “When Article 142 suits you, you accept it and hail the court, like in the Babri Masjid case. When it doesn’t suit you, you ridicule the courts.”
This growing confrontation between the executive and legislature on one side and the judiciary on the other brings back memories of the Kesavananda Bharati case, often called “the case that shook and saved India.”
On 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench delivered this much-awaited judgement. Though over 50 years have passed, let’s revisit this landmark case and its current relevance.
The Indian Constitution is unique in many ways, with its roots stretching long back, even before the Constituent Assembly was convened in Delhi in 1946.
Since the early 20th century, various groups demanded a governance framework for a future independent India, then under British control. The 1928 Nehru Report envisioned India with linguistic-based provinces, a federal structure, fundamental rights, and universal adult suffrage.
Unfortunately, when the Constituent Assembly met, it coincided with the partition, which brought bloodshed, mass migrations and communal riots. This backdrop influenced the Assembly to prioritise India’s unity, leading to a centrally controlled, quasi-federal system. Still, they ensured fundamental rights, religious freedom and a secular state, even without explicitly mentioning it.
The architects of the Constitution, having faced colonial violence and violations of their rights, aimed to prevent power concentration in any one person or organ of government, which could lead to tyranny. They created three branches: The legislature, representing the people and tasked with making laws and policies; the executive, responsible for implementing these policies without altering them; and the judiciary, empowered to protect citizens’ rights, guide government actions, and interpret the Constitution.
The Supreme Court was made the protector of the Constitution against the legislature and the executive.
Since Independence, India has seen cooperation, confrontation and conflict among these branches, especially on issues like fundamental rights vs directive principles, affirmative action vs equality, land reforms vs property rights and union vs state powers in the late 1960s.
According to the constitutional setup, aggrieved parties approached the Supreme Court. Though their petitions varied, their core question centred on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In 1951, Shankari Prasad Deo challenged the First Constitutional Amendment, which protected affirmative action and land reforms. He argued that fundamental rights were the Constitution’s bedrock and Parliament could not alter them under Article 368.
The Supreme Court rejected this, affirming Parliament’s unrestricted power to amend the Constitution. This view was upheld in Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965), though Justice JR Mudholkar’s dissent raised concerns about Parliament’s unlimited powers, stressing the Constitution’s unalterable features.
Soon after, IC Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967) revisited these issues, challenging the 13th, 14th, and 17th Amendments, which restricted fundamental rights and turned property rights into legal rights. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under Article 368.
In this context, the Kerala government’s 1963 Land Reform Act, which restricted land holdings and allowed surplus land acquisition, led Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, to file a case. He argued that these actions violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25, and 26. Similar petitions were compiled into Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, as he was the first to approach the court.
Initially heard by a five-judge bench, the case was transferred to a 13-judge bench, the largest in Indian judicial history. Senior advocate Nani Palkhivala, representing the petitioners, argued that government actions diluted fundamental rights under Article 368 and raised concerns about unchecked parliamentary power.
Justice Hans Raj Khanna praised Palkhivala’s arguments as reaching “the heights of eloquence seldom equalled and never surpassed in the Supreme Court’s history.”
The government’s counsel defended the amendments, emphasising the need to implement directive principles, promote redistribution, and ensure an inclusive society through parliamentary supremacy. After six months, on 24 April 1973, the Supreme Court delivered a 7:6 majority ruling.
It upheld Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but stressed that amendments should not destroy its original essence. The court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” declaring constitutional supremacy, judicial review, fundamental rights, federalism, and secularism as unalterable features.
Since the judgement, the Supreme Court has expanded the basic structure doctrine, striking down amendments that violate it. This doctrine has safeguarded Indian democracy and federalism, making the case a milestone in judicial history. It continues to protect the Constitution against parliamentary overreach.
The Kesavananda Bharati judgement was delivered way before the Emergency was declared. However, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, introduced during the Emergency, brought changes that clashed with the Constitution’s fundamental features, notably shifting education from the State List to the Concurrent List.
This laid the groundwork for centralised control over education, seen in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the National Testing Agency, and NEET exams, often overriding state autonomy.
It was argued that this amendment violates the Constitution’s basic structure. Dr N Ezhilan, MLA from Thousand Lights near Chennai and a medical practitioner, has filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging Section 57 of the 42nd Amendment, which moved education to the Concurrent List.
He argued that this violates federalism and seeks to restore education to the State List to strengthen federal principles. Even after 50 years, the Kesavananda Bharati case remains a guiding light — a constitutional lighthouse — for cases like this, exploring the limits and possibilities of India’s federal structure.
Today, we see a remake of past confrontations between the judiciary and the legislature. Not only BJP leaders like former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju but also constitutional officeholders like the vice president are attacking the Supreme Court for upholding constitutional values and limiting Parliament’s powers.
During his speech on the Constitution’s 75th anniversary, Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticised past instances when Parliament overturned judicial decisions through amendments and targeted judges.
Yet, he remains silent when similar actions come from his own party, amplifying them instead of addressing them.
India’s pluralism, with its overlapping ethnic, linguistic, and cultural dynamics, is our pride today, but was once seen as a weakness. Many Western intellectuals, including Winston Churchill, predicted India’s disintegration post-Independence.
Time proved them wrong, thanks to the Constitution, which reflects India’s diverse society and holds it together. Unlike our neighbours, whose constitutions and judiciaries failed, India’s framework endures.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin recalled that the judgement is acting like a sword and shield to protect India’s secularism, federalism, and fundamental rights. Let’s acknowledge the constitutional commitment while enjoying our freedom as it is intertwined with each other.
(Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
