What is Kesavananda Bharati Case? All you need to know

The Kesavananda Bharati judgment is a  landmark case in Indian constitutional law that decided the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This case was considered one of the most celebrated constitutional cases in the country and was heard by the largest bench of 13 judges including Chief Justice S. M. Sikri, A.N. Ray, S.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.K. Mukherjea, J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, H.R. Khanna, S.N. Dwivedi, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati. The case went on for 66 days starting from 31st October 1972 to 16th March 1973 and the final verdict was passed on 23rd March 1973. 

Who filed the Kesavananda Bharati Case? 

The case was filed by Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu monastery who challenged the Kerala government's attempt to take over the land of the monastery under Article 26, which gives citizens the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference. However, the scope of the case became larger and it turned out to become a constitutional matter as it questioned the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati case: Background 

Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a Hindu monastery in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He owned land in Mutt. In 1969, the Kerala government passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act which suggested that the government has the right to acquire some lands belonging to the Mutt.

In March 1970, Bharati challenged the Supreme Court to impose the fundamental rights he holds under Article 14, the right to equality, Article 19(1)(f), the freedom to acquire property, Article 25, the right to practice and propagate religion, Article 26, the right to manage religious affairs and Article 31, the compulsory acquisition of property. 

Kesavananda Bharati Case Judgement 

On 24th April 1973, the Supreme Court passed the final verdict by a majority of 7:6  suggesting that the Parliament's power to amend any provision of the Indian Constitution as long these amendments do not alter the "basic structure" or framework of the Constitution. Therefore, certain fundamental features of the Constitution including the supremacy of the Constitution, law-making bodies, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, were part of the basic structure, which could not be amended by the Parliament. 

What was the Doctrine of the basic structure? 

According to the  Doctrine of the basic structure, the Parliament holds unlimited power to make amends in the Constitution provided that such amendments don’t interfere with the basic structure of the Constitution. Also, it suggested that every amendment made by the Constitution has to undergo the ‘basic structure test to ensure that the basic structure of the Constitution does not change.