Scribd
Upload
4 views

Blog_CSRLD

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case established the basic structure doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental essence. This landmark ruling affirmed the judiciary's role in reviewing amendments that threaten the Constitution's core principles, including fundamental rights and the rule of law. The decision has had lasting implications for the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary in India and has influenced constitutional jurisprudence globally.

Uploaded by

Neetisha Mohanty
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Blog_CSRLD

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case established the basic structure doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental essence. This landmark ruling affirmed the judiciary's role in reviewing amendments that threaten the Constitution's core principles, including fundamental rights and the rule of law. The decision has had lasting implications for the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary in India and has influenced constitutional jurisprudence globally.

Uploaded by

Neetisha Mohanty
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v.

State of Kerala
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
By Neetisha Mohanty
2182050 (4th Year)
Introduction
Keshavananda Bharati is a milestone in the Indian Constitutional history. It defined the basic
structure doctrine which shaped the relationship between the legislature and judiciary.
The landmark judgment of the 13-judge bench resulting in a 7:6 majority decision overruled
the judgment by a bench of 11 judges in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The constitutional
validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments were challenged.

Background
The case involved six writ petitions and the lead petitioner, His Holiness Keshavanada Bharati
Sripadagalvaru, challenged the 29th Constitutional Amendment.
Question of Law
Whether the Parliament has unrestricted powers under Article 368 to amend the Constitution?

Judicial Interpretation & Implications


Parliament's Power to Amend (Article 368): The ruling stated that the Parliament holds the
power to amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights, but it cannot
destroy the Constitution’s “Basic Structure”
Basic Structure Doctrine: The basic structure doctrine includes the following key features:
 Supremacy of the Constitution
 Unity and sovereignty of India
 Democratic and republican form of government
 Federal character of the Constitution
 Secular character of the Constitution
 Separation of power
 Individual freedom
Over the years it has evolved and other features like rule of law, judicial review, free and fair
elections etc. have been added to the basic structure doctrine.
Judicial Review

The judiciary was granted the authority to examine and nullify amendments that breach the
basic structure of the Constitution, thereby reaffirming its supremacy in matters of
constitutional interpretation.
Protection of Fundamental Rights

It was implied that some clauses in the Constitution, including those pertaining to fundamental
rights, judicial independence, and federalism, were integral parts of its essential framework and
were therefore exempt from constitutional modification.

Article 31C

Article 31C, introduced by the 25th Amendment, sought to protect laws aimed at implementing
Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial scrutiny. The Court invalidated parts of
Article 31C that restricted judicial review, reinforcing that even Directive Principles must align
with the basic structure.

Interpretation of the Basic Structure Doctrine


Each judge of the bench had different opinions on what constituted the basic structure and
hence there was no unanimity. Only six judges of the bench agreed that the Fundamental Rights
are part of the basic structure and the Parliament cannot amend it. It was ruled that the essential
elements of the Constitution, being the basic Structure, is un-amendable and embraces the
essence of the Constitution.
Basic Structure & Constitutional Morality

Constitutional Morality can also be understood as aligning with the Basic Structure of the
Constitution. This perspective stems from the observation that both doctrines uphold similar
values, such as the rule of law, democracy, and freedom of speech and expression. Both focus
on the core principles, moral foundation, and essence of the Constitution. Therefore, equating
these doctrines is not unfounded.

The doctrine differentiates between basic features and the basic structure. Basic features refer
to individual elements like democracy or judicial independence, while the basic structure
encompasses their collective essence. Amendments to basic features do not necessarily disrupt
the basic structure; their impact depends on the context and nature of the amendment. For
example, changing the minimum voting age may not affect democracy, but altering universal
adult franchise could pose a threat to it.

Balancing Judicial Review and Legislative Powers

The doctrine, while innovative, shifts constitutional power dynamics by granting the judiciary
authority to annul amendments that threaten the Constitution's essence. Critics argue this limits
Parliament's amending power and creates ambiguity about what constitutes the basic structure.
Scholars like Nani Palkhivala supported this principle, emphasizing that it ensures the
Constitution’s longevity by protecting its fundamental ethos.

At the same time, the judiciary has cautioned against overusing this doctrine, as frequent
judicial intervention could hinder governance. The doctrine, as Justice Krishna Iyer remarked,
should not become a “Trojan horse” to intrude into legislative processes unnecessarily.

Conclusion
This historic ruling signalled a major shift by confirming that, even though the Constitution is
a living instrument that can change with society, some fundamental principles must be upheld
in order to preserve the integrity and uniqueness of the country. Since then, the doctrine has
been an essential judicial tool for preserving the balance of power among the three division of
government and safeguarding these ideals against any legislative excess.

The prolonged conflict between the supremacy of power between the Parliament and the
Constitution culminated in a landmark resolution. The ruling affirmed that there is no implied
limitation on the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution but no amendment
brought can violate the basic structure doctrine. The Basic Structure doctrine has been crucial
in landmark cases like Minerva Mills (1980) where 42nd amendment was partially struck down
and the Indira Gandhi Election Case (1975) where democratic processes were shielded from
executive dominance.

Beyond India, Kesavananda Bharati's influence has an impact on constitutional courts around
the world. It guarantees that the Indian Constitution continues to be a strong and durable
foundation for governance as a pillar of constitutional jurisprudence.

You might also like