The Kesavananda Bharati judgement is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.

1. KESAVANANDA BHARATI
SRIPADAGALVARU AND OTHERS V.
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
AIR 1973 SCC 225

2. •INTRODUCTION :
• Kesavananda Bharati is a landmark case and the decision taken by the Supreme
Court outlined the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution. The decision
was given by the bench in Kesavananda Bharati's case was very unique and
thoughtful. The judgment was of 700 pages which included the solution for
both parliaments right to amend laws and citizens right to protect their
Fundamental Rights. The bench came with Doctrine of Basic Structure in order
to protect the interest of both citizens of India and the parliament. The bench
through the solution solved the questions which were left unanswered in
Golaknath case. This case overruled the decision given in the case of Golaknath
v. State of Punjab. A case by putting a restriction on the parliaments right to
amend the constitution. The doctrine of basic structure was introduced to
ensure that the amendments do not take away the rights of the citizens which
were guaranteed to them by the Fundamental Rights.

3. •PARTIES:
• The parties in this case were petitioner was Kesavananda Bharati and others
and respondent was state of Kerala.
•FACTS OF THE CASE:
• Kesavananda Bharati was a chief of a ethnic mud which is a religious set in
Kasaragod district in Kerala. Kesavananda Bharati has certain pieces of land in
set which were own by him in his name. The state government of Kerala
introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969. According to the act the
government was entitled to acquire some of the sectors lands of which
Kesavananda Bharati was the chief. On 21st March 1970, Kesavananda Bharati
moved to Supreme Court and the Article-32 of constitution of India for
enforcement of his rights which guaranteed under Article-25 Rights to practice
and propagate religion. Article-26 Right to manage religious affairs. Article-14
Right to equality. Article-19(1)(f) Freedom to acquire property. Article-31
Compulsory acquisition of Property.

4. • When the petition was still under consideration by the court the Kerala
government another act (i.e) Kerala Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1971. After
the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab the parliament passed a
series of amendments in order to overcome the judgment of the Golaknath
case. In 1971, the 24th Amendment was passed. In 1971, 25th Amendment
and 29th Amendment were passed subsequently. The following amendments
were made after Golaknath case which was challenged in the present case. The
1st one is 24th Amendment: In the case of Golaknath it was laid down in the
judgment that every amendment which is mad under Article-368 will be taken
as a exception under Article-13. Therefore, in order to neutralize this effect the
parliament through an amendment in Article-13 of the constitution Clause(4)
so that no amendment have an effect under Article-13. The parliament in order
to remove any kind of ambiguity added Clause(3) to Article-368. Which reads a
follows. Nothing in Article-13 shall apply to any amendment made under this
article.

5. • In the case of Golaknath the majority decided that Article-368 earlier contained
the provision in which the procedure of amendment was given and not the
powers of in order to include the world "Power" was added in the marginal
note. The parliament try to draw a distinction between the procedure in an
amendment and the ordinary law through an amendment in Article-368 (2).
Earlier the president could exercise his power to refuse or withhold a bill for the
amendment. After the 24th amendment the president did not have a choice to
refuse or with hold a bill. This was done by the parliament in order to protect
the amendment from the exception that is mentioned under Article-13 of
constitution of India.
• 25th Amendment:
• Through this amendment the parliament wanted to make it clear that they are
not bound to act equally compensate the landlords in case their property is
taken by the state government and in order to do so the word ‘Compensation’
was replaced with the word ‘Amount’ under Article- 31(2) of constitution of
India.

6. • The link between Article- 19(1)(f) and Article- 31(2) was removed the 25th
amendment. Under Article-31(c) of constitution of India a new provision was
added in order to remove all difficulty and to full fill the objectives lay down
under Article-39(b) and Article-39(c). It was decided that Article-14, 19, 31 will
not be applied to any law. In order to make Article-39(b) and Article-39(c)
effective the court was immunized from interviewing in any law made by the
parliament.
•29th Amendment:
• The 29th amendment was passed in the year 1972, it inserted the Kerala Land
Reforms Act into the 9th Schedule. It means that the matters related to the
Kerala Land Reforms Act will be outside the scope of judiciary to try. All the
amendments which were made by the central government in some or other
way protected the amendments made by the state government from being
tried in the court of law. Provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act along with
24th, 25th and 29th Amendments were challenged in the court of law.

7. •Issues before the court:
• 1. Whether the 24th amendment act, 1971 is constitutionally valid or not?
• 2. Whether the 25th amendment act, 1972 is constitutionally valid or not?
• 3. The extent to which the parliament can exercise its power to amend the
constitution?
•The contentions of parties of issues:
• The petitioners contentions was condemned by the petitioner that the
parliament cannot amend the constitution in a way that they want to because
they have a limited power to do so.
• The parliament cannot exercise its power to amend the constitution by
changing its Basic structure as the same was propounded by Justice. Mudokar
in the case of Sajan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The petitioner pleader for the
protection of his property under Article-19(1)(f) of constitution of India. It was
argued by him that the 24th amendment and 25th amendment .

8. • Constitutional amendments violated the Fundamental Rights available to the
citizens of India to ensure freedom and if any constitutional amendments takes
away such rights then the freedom which is ensured under the constitution to
its citizens will be deemed to be taken away from them.
• The respondents contentions was the respondent was the state.
• The state condemned that supremacy of parliament is the basic principle of the
Indian legal system ad so the parliament has the power to amend the
constitution and unlimitedly.
• State also contended that in order to full fill its socio-economic obligations
which have been guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Preamble.
• It is important that the parliament exercise its power to amend the constitution
without any limitations.

9. •Judgment:
• It was held by the apex court by a majority of 7:6 that parliament can amend
any provisions of the constitution to full fill socio-economic obligations
guaranteed to the citizens under the preamble subject to the condition that
such amendment wont change the basic structure of the Indian constitution.
The court upheld the 24th constitutional amendment entirely but the 1st and
2nd part of this 25th Constitutional amendment act found to be intra vires and
ultra vires respectively. It was observed by the court in relation to the powers of
the parliament to amend the constitution that it was a question of that was left
unanswered in the case of Golaknath. The answer to the question was found in
the present case and it was deduced by the court that the parliament has the
power to amend the constitution to the extent that such amendment dose not
change the basic structure of the constitution, it was decided it was lay down
by the court that the Doctrine of Basic Structure is to be followed by the
parliament while amending the provisions of the constitution.

10. •The Doctorine of Basic Structure:
• According to the doctrine the parliament has an unlimited power to amend the
constitution subject to the slow condition that such amendments must not
change the basic structure of Indian constitution. The parliament should not in
any manner interfere with the basic features of the constitution will be left
spiritless and loss its very essence. The basic structure of the constitution was
not mentioned by the bench and was left to the interpretation of the court.
The court need to see and interpret if a particular amendment violates the
basic structure of our Indian constitution or not. The court found that as
contented by the respondence an amendment. Kesavananda Bharati's case to
some extent overruled Golaknath case. The court in this case answered the
question which was left unanswered in Golaknath case in relation to the power
of parliament to amend provisions of the Indian constitution. The court found
that the word 'Amend' which was included in Article-368 does not refer to
amendments that can change the basic structure of the constitution.

11. • If the parliament wants to amend a particular provision of the Constitution.
The such amendment would need to go through the test of basic structure. It
was also decided that since the parliament has an unlimited power to amend
the constitution subject to the basic structure then parliament can also amend
Fundamental rights as for as they are not included in the basic structure of
Indian Constitution. 24th Amendment was upheld by the bench, where as 25th
amendment, 2nd part was struck down. The 25th amendment validation was
subjected to 2 conditions:
• 1. The court agreed that the word 'Amount' and 'Compensation' is not equal to
each other but still the amount which is provided by the government to the
landlords should not be unreasonable. The amount need not be equal to the
market value but should be reasonable and closely related tot he present
market value.
• 2. The 1st part of the 25th amendment was upheld but it was subjected to
provision that the prohibition of the judiciaries which will be struck down.

12. •Critical Analysis of Judgment:
• The majority of the bench wanted to preserve the Indian constitution by
protecting the basic structure of Indian constitution. The judgment was after
analysing the various aspects and based on sound reasoning. The bench feared
that if the parliament would provided with unlimited power to amend our
Indian constitution. Then the power will be misused and would be change by
the government according to its own will and preferences. The basic feature
and very spirit of the Indian Constitution can be altered by the government if
they have unlimited powers to make amendments. There was need for a
doctrine to preserve the rights of both the parliament and citizens. Therefore,
the bench came up with a mid-day to protect both of their rights of the
doctrine of basic structure. Even before our Indian constitution came into force
approximately 30 amendments were already made to it. After the
commencement of Indian constitution 1951 around 150 amendments passed in
230 years, Despite the huge number of amendments the spirit and ideas of the
framers of Indian constitution have remained intact. Indian constitution did not
lose its identity and spirit because of the steps taken by the bench in this case.

13. • The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati's case provided stability to
the constitution. Though the petitioner lose his case. Partially yet the
judgment that was given by the bench in this case worked out be a
saviour of Indian democracy and saved the constitution by losing its
spirit. Exactly 47 years ago on April 24 1973 Chief Justice. Sikri told
the judges of Supreme Court assembled to deliver the most
important judgment in his history. The case of Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala had been heard for 68 days. The arguments
commencing on October 31st 1972 and ending on March 23rd 1973
by a 7:6 verdict.
• A 13 judge constitution bench ruled that the basic structure of the
constitution is in available and could not be amend by the
parliament. The basic structure doctrine has been regarded as a
tenant of Indian Constitutional Law.

14. • All the effort taken in this case was to answer only on remain
question was the power of parliament to amend the constitution
unlimited?
• In other words could parliament alter amendment abrogate any part
of the constitution even to the extent of taking away all Fundamental
Rights ?
• The date 24the April 1973 is very remarkable because on this duty
the case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was decided which
has been playing a great role between judiciary and parliament from
then till today.
• This case is famous for the victory of Indian Constitution and it is
remarkable for the fight between the parliament and judiciary.

15. THANK YOU