Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
CitationAIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225
CourtSupreme Court of India (13-Judge Bench)
Date24 April 1973
Year1973
BenchS.M. Sikri CJI, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea, Y.V. Chandrachud JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 368, Article 13, Article 14, 19, 21, 31
CategoryConstitutional Law

Key Principle Established

Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. The basic structure doctrine is the most significant constitutional principle in India.

Brief Facts

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The case expanded into a fundamental question: can Parliament, through constitutional amendments, alter or abrogate fundamental rights? Is there any limit to the amending power under Article 368?

Ratio Decidendi

By a 7:6 majority, the largest bench ever assembled by the Supreme Court held:

  • Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution including fundamental rights
  • However, Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution
  • The basic structure includes: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, dignity of the individual, unity and integrity of the nation, judicial review, and the mandate to build a welfare state
  • Any amendment that destroys the basic structure can be struck down by the judiciary

Impact & Significance

Kesavananda Bharati is India’s most important constitutional judgment. The basic structure doctrine has saved Indian democracy from potential authoritarian amendments multiple times — notably during the Emergency when the 42nd Amendment attempted to place constitutional amendments beyond judicial review (struck down in Minerva Mills). This doctrine has been adopted by courts in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and other nations.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Article 368 Article 13 Article 14 19 21 31
← Previous Judgment Kehar Singh v. Union of India
Next Judgment → Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar

Related Judgments

1993

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

AIR 1993 SC 1960

State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…

Read Analysis
1986

Sheela Barse v. Union of India

(1986) 3 SCC 632

Children cannot be kept in jails. Directions issued for establishment of juvenile courts, children's homes, and appointment of duty counsel…

Read Analysis
1985

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545

Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers cannot be evicted…

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266 WhatsApp

Need Legal Assistance?

Contact Advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull for expert legal guidance on your matter.