Case Analysis - Kesavananda Bharati V

Case analysis - Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala
Submitted by
Martand Saili
(Reg. No. 2050381)
CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
BENGALURU, INDIA
2025
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution declares India to be a Sovereign,
Democratic, and Republic state. It serves as a prelude, expressing the
underlying philosophy and objectives of the Constitution. The Preamble is in
line with the provisions of the Constitution and succinctly encapsulates the
goals and aspirations of the Indian people. Importantly, the power to amend
the Constitution must be exercised within its boundaries, ensuring that the
basic structure or framework is not destroyed or abrogated. This means that
sovereignty is not solely located in Parliament, emphasizing the supremacy
of the Constitution.
For some time, it was believed that the Preamble was not a part of the
Constitution. However, the Supreme Court in the landmark case
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala recognized that the Preamble is
indeed a part of the Constitution, as it was the first to be introduced and the
last to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly.
Background of the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Doctrine of Basic Structure emerged from the legal battle between the
judiciary and the legislature in independent India. This began with the case
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, which questioned whether the
Fundamental Rights could be amended under Article 368 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment of the
Constitution (1951), which curtailed the Right to Property. Over the years,
the Court oscillated on whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights
through Article 368.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Justice J.R. Mudholkar theorized that

the Constitution had basic features that could not be amended. He questioned
whether altering the basic structure of the Constitution would be considered
merely an amendment or a rewriting of the Constitution, which would fall
outside the scope of Article 368. Despite the majority upholding Shankari
Prasad, the dissenting opinions of Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, who
argued that Fundamental Rights were not meant to be amended without the
concurrence of states, laid the groundwork for the eventual emergence of the
Basic Structure Doctrine.
Evolution Through Key Amendments
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab furthered the concept of the basic structure
by relying on Justice Mudholkar’s opinion. The majority opinion in
Golaknath reflected concerns about Parliament's powers, questioning whether
Fundamental Rights could be altered by any form of majority. In response to
Golaknath, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments to assert
its amending powers.
24th Amendment (1971)
The 24th Amendment neutralized Article 13, which protected Fundamental

Rights from being violated by any law, by adding clauses to Article 368.
These clauses clarified that nothing in Article 13 would apply to any
amendment under Article 368, and that the President could not withhold
assent to an amendment.
The 25th Amendment curtailed the Fundamental Right to Property by

replacing the word ‘compensation’ with ‘amount’, reducing the government's
obligation to provide adequate compensation for acquired property. It also
made laws implementing certain Directive Principles immune to judicial
review, significantly altering the balance between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles.
The 29th Amendment inserted two Kerala Land Reforms Acts into the 9th
Schedule of the Constitution, placing them beyond judicial scrutiny. The 9th
Schedule contains laws that are immune from judicial review under Article
31A and 31B.
The Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, a 13-judge bench of the

Supreme Court held that Parliament could not alter the basic structure or
framework of the Constitution under Article 368. The case challenged
various amendments, including the Kerala Land Reforms, 24th, 25th, and
29th Amendments, arguing that they violated Fundamental Rights. The Court
upheld the validity of the 29th Amendment by a narrow margin, while also
affirming the entire 24th Amendment and partially striking down the 25th
Amendment.
Justices Hegde and Mukherjea emphasized that the Constitution was not just
a political document but also a social one, containing essential features that
could not be altered. It became the role of the Courts to determine whether a
particular amendment violated the Basic Structure.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati decision, which extended over 700 pages,

established the Basic Structure Doctrine as a standard to check the violation
of constitutional provisions. It overruled previous decisions in Shankari
Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and Golaknath, ensuring that while Parliament’s
obligations remained, the citizens' rights were protected from potential
overreach.

Case Analysis - Kesavananda Bharati V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis - Kesavananda Bharati V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis - Kesavananda Bharati V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case analysis - Kesavananda Bharati v.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Background of the Basic Structure Doctrine

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Justice J.R. Mudholkar theorized that

Evolution Through Key Amendments

24th Amendment (1971)

The 24th Amendment neutralized Article 13, which protected Fundamental

25th Amendment (1972)

The 25th Amendment curtailed the Fundamental Right to Property by

29th Amendment (1972)

In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, a 13-judge bench of the

The Kesavananda Bharati decision, which extended over 700 pages,

You might also like