SMALL INTRO: Keshavananda Bharati was a prominent Hindu seer and the head of the Edneer Mutt

in Kasaragod district, Kerala. He is best known for his role in the Keshavananda Bharati case, which is
considered one of the most important cases in the history of Indian constitutional law. The case was
a dispute over the properties of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala, and raised several important constitutional issues, including the limits of the amending
power of Parliament and the protection of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, in a landmark
judgment, held that the Constitution of India has a "basic structure" that cannot be altered by
Parliament, and that any amendment that destroys or abrogates this basic structure would be
unconstitutional. The case had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law and established the
principle of the basic structure of the Constitution.

FACTS:

1. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of India in 1970 by Keshavananda Bharati, the head of the
Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod district, Kerala. He challenged the Kerala government's attempts to take
over the management and control of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The case raised several important constitutional issues, including the limits of the amending
power of Parliament and the protection of fundamental rights. The government argued that
Parliament had the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights,
while Keshavananda Bharati argued that there were limits to the amending power of Parliament and
that certain provisions of the Constitution, such as fundamental rights, were immune from
amendment.

3. The case was heard by a bench of 13 judges, the largest ever in Indian legal history. The hearing of
the case lasted for 68 days, from October 31, 1972, to March 23, 1973.

4. The lead counsel for Keshavananda Bharati was the famous lawyer Nani Palkhivala, while the
government was represented by Attorney General Niren De. The case was argued in front of a
packed courtroom and attracted widespread public attention.

5. The verdict was delivered on April 24, 1973, and was a 7-6 split decision. The majority opinion was
written by Chief Justice Sikri, while the dissenting opinion was written by Justice Khanna.

6. The majority held that the Constitution of India has a "basic structure" that cannot be altered by
Parliament, and that any amendment that destroys or abrogates this basic structure would be
unconstitutional. The majority did not define what the basic structure of the Constitution was, but
held that it included the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers,
the federal character of the Constitution, and the protection of fundamental rights.
7. The case established the principle of the basic structure of the Constitution, which has been used
by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases to strike down amendments that are deemed to violate
the basic structure. The case also had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law and is widely
studied in law schools across India.

FINAL JUDGEMENT:

1. The case was heard by a bench of 13 judges, and the judgment was delivered on April 24, 1973.

2. The majority held that the Constitution of India had a "basic structure" that could not be altered
by Parliament, and that any amendment that destroyed or abrogated this basic structure would be
unconstitutional.

3. The majority did not provide a comprehensive list of what constituted the basic structure, but
held that it included the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers,
the federal character of the Constitution, and the protection of fundamental rights.

4. The majority held that the amending power of Parliament was not unlimited, and that there were
implied limitations on this power. The majority held that Parliament could not amend the
Constitution in a manner that destroyed or abrogated the basic structure of the Constitution.

5. The majority also held that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution were not
absolute, and that Parliament could amend these rights, subject to the limitations imposed by the
basic structure of the Constitution.

6. The majority held that the Constitution was a living document, and that its interpretation had to
be flexible and dynamic, in order to meet the changing needs of society.

7. The dissenting judges held that the amending power of Parliament was unlimited, and that
Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

8. The judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case established the principle of the basic structure of
the Constitution, which has been used by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases to strike down
amendments that are deemed to violate the basic structure.

9. The judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case had a profound impact on Indian constitutional
law, and is widely studied in law schools across India.
The nine signatories to the statement were

1. Chief Justice S M Sikri

2. J. M. Shelat
3. K. S. Hegde
4. A. N. Grover
5. P. Jaganmohan Reddy
6. D. G. Palekar
7. H R Khanna
8. A. K. Mukherjee
9. Y.V. Chandrachud.
Four judges did not sign the judgment

1. A. N. Ray,
2. K. K. Mathew
3. M. H. Beg
4. S. N. Dwivedi
S.M. Sikri, Chief Justice
CJI S M Sikri held that the fundamental importance of the freedom of the individual has to be
preserved for all times to come and that it could not be amended out of existence. According
to the Chief Justice, fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of
India cannot be abrogated, though a reasonable abridgment of those rights could be effected
in public interest. There is a limitation on the power of amendment by necessary implication
which was apparent from a reading of the preamble and therefore, according to the learned
Chief Justice, the expression 'amendment of this Constitution,' in Article 368, means any
addition or change in any of the provisions of the Constitution within the broad contours of
the preamble, made in order to carry out the basic objectives of the Constitution. Accordingly,
every provision of the Constitution was open to amendment provided the basic foundation or
structure of the Constitution was not damaged or destroyed.
Shelat and Grover, JJ
Held that the preamble to the Constitution contains the clue to the fundamentals of the
Constitution. According to the learned Judges, Parts III and IV of the Constitution which
respectively embody the fundamental rights and the directive principles have to be balanced
and harmonised. This balance & harmony between two integral parts of the Constitution
forms a basic element of the Constitution which cannot be altered. The word 'amendment'
occurring in Article 368 must therefore be construed in such a manner as to preserve the
power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not so as to result in damaging or
destroying the structure and identity of the Constitution. There was thus an implied limitation
on the amending power which prevented the Parliament from abolishing or changing the
identity of the Constitution or any of its Basic Structure.
Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ
Held that the Constitution of India which is essentially a social rather than a political
document, is founded on a social philosophy and as such has two main features basic and
circumstantial. The basic constituent remained constant, the circumstantial was subject to
change. According to the learned Judges, the broad contours of the basic elements and the
fundamental features of the Constitution are delineated in the preamble and the Parliament
has no power to abolish or emasculate those basic elements of fundamental features. The
building of a welfare State is the ultimate goal of every Government but that does not mean
that in order to build a welfare State, human freedoms have to suffer a total destruction.
Applying these tests, the learned Judges invalidated Article 31C even in its un-amended
form.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J
Held that the word 'amendment' was used in the sense of permitting a change e, in
contradistinction to destruction, which the repeal or abrogation brings about. Therefore, the
width of the power of amendment could not be enlarged by amending the amending power
itself. The learned Judge held that the essential elements of the basic structure of the
Constitution are reflected in its preamble and that some of the important features of the
Constitution are justice, freedom of expression and equality of status and opportunity. The
word 'amendment' could not possibly embrace the right to abrogate the pivotal features and
the fundamental freedoms and therefore, that part of the basic structure could not be
damaged or destroyed. According to the learned Judge, the provisions of Article 31d, as
they, conferring power on Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws for giving
effect to the principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39, altogether abrogated the
right given by Article 14 and were for that reason unconstitutional. In conclusion, the learned
Judge held that though the power of amendment was wide, it did not comprehend the power
to totally abrogate or emasculate or damage any of the fundamental rights or the essential
elements of the basic structure of the Constitution or to destroy the identity of the
Constitution. Subject to these limitations, Parliament had the right to amend any and every
provision of the Constitution.
H R Khanna J
H R Khanna has given in his judgment that the Parliament had full power to amend the
Constitution, however, since it is only a 'power to amend,' the basic structure or framework of
the structure should remain intact. While as per the aforesaid views of the six learned
Judges, certain "essential elements" (which included fundamental rights) of the judgment
cannot be amended as there are certain implied restrictions on the powers of the parliament
of India.
According to the Judge, although it was permissible for the Parliament to effect changes in
the exercise of its amending power so as to meet the requirements of changing conditions, it
was not permissible to touch the foundation or to alter the basic institutional pattern.
Therefore, the words 'amendment of the Constitution' in spite of the width of their sweep and
in spite of their amplitude, could not have the effect of empowering the Parliament to destroy
or abrogate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
ARTICLES: The Keshavananda Bharati case established the principle of the "basic structure" of the
Constitution, which limits the power of Parliament to amend certain fundamental features of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court's ruling in the case was based on several articles of the
Constitution of India, including Article 13, which deals with the doctrine of judicial review; Article 14,
which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws; Article 19,
which guarantees certain freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, and association; and Article 21,
which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The case is widely regarded as a landmark in
Indian constitutional law, and as one of the most important cases in the history of the Indian
judiciary.

SIGNIFICANCE: The government of Indira Gandhi did not take kindly to this restriction on its
powers by the court. On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray, who was among the dissenters,
was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and
Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history.[18]
The 42nd Amendment, enacted in 1976, is considered to be the immediate and most direct fall
out of the judgment. Apart from it, the judgement cleared the deck for complete legislative
authority to amend any part of the Constitution except when the amendments are not in
consonance with the basic features of the Constitution.
In the 1980 case Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment. The 39th Amendment was
passed in 1975, during The Emergency and placed the election of the President, the Vice
President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the
Indian courts.[19][16] Adopting this amendment was a move to suppress Gandhi's prosecution.
The basic structure doctrine was also adopted by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in 1989, by
expressly relying on the reasoning in the Kesavananda case, in its ruling on Anwar Hossain
Chowdhary v. Bangladesh
CONCUSION: The Keshavananda Bharati case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that
established the principle of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The case held that Parliament's
power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, and that certain fundamental features of the
Constitution could not be amended. This decision has had far-reaching implications for Indian
democracy and constitutional law, and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The case is
also notable for the fact that it was decided by a narrow majority of 7-6, which highlights the
importance of judicial independence and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the
Constitution. Overall, the Keshavananda Bharati case is widely regarded as one of the most
important cases in the history of Indian constitutional law, and as a landmark in the development of
Indian democracy and the rule of law.