Kesavananda Bharati

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461), decided on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India — the largest ever constituted — is the single most consequential constitutional case in Indian history. The petitioner, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala land reform laws under Article 26 (freedom to manage religious property), but the case grew into a comprehensive re-examination of Parliament's amending power under Article 368. By a wafer-thin 7:6 majority, the Court propounded the basic structure doctrine: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy its "basic structure" or essential features. The majority opinion was authored chiefly by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, supported by Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy and the pivotal swing vote of Justice H.R. Khanna.

The verdict expressly overruled Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Fundamental Rights were beyond amendment, while simultaneously rejecting the government's claim — flowing from the 24th Amendment — that the amending power was unlimited. The Court upheld the validity of the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments but struck down the second part of Article 31C, which had sought to bar judicial review of laws giving effect to the Directive Principles in Articles 39(b) and (c). The judges did not exhaustively define "basic structure," but illustrative features named across the opinions include the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, the rule of law, judicial review, and free and fair elections.

The doctrine was swiftly tested and entrenched. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) it invalidated Clause 4 of the 39th Amendment shielding the Prime Minister's election; in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, holding that limited amending power and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles were themselves basic features. In Waman Rao (1981), S.R. Bommai (1994) — affirming secularism and federalism — I.R. Coelho (2007) — subjecting Ninth Schedule laws post-1973 to basic-structure review — and the NJAC judgment of 2015 (striking the 99th Amendment to protect judicial independence), the doctrine remains the bedrock of Indian constitutionalism in 2026.

For UPSC, this is a guaranteed area in the General Studies Paper II (Indian Polity and Governance) under "amendment of the Constitution" and "separation of powers," and a frequent Prelims fact-recall item (bench size of 13, the 7:6 margin, the year 1973, overruling of Golak Nath). Mains questions typically ask candidates to critically evaluate the basic structure doctrine as a check on parliamentary sovereignty, contrast it with the British doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, and trace its evolution through Minerva Mills and Coelho. A strong answer cites the specific amendments validated and invalidated and distinguishes the amendable from the unamendable.