Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.
Written by Pratidin; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
Decided by a 13-judge bench, 7:6. The basic structure doctrine is the main limit on Parliament's amending power under Article 368.
Quick recall
- What did Kesavananda Bharati hold?
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but not its basic structure.
- How large was the bench?
- 13 judges, deciding 7:6.
- Which case said Parliament could not amend fundamental rights?
- Golak Nath (1967).
- Which amendment responded to Golak Nath?
- The 24th Amendment (1971).
- Which case struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment using the doctrine?
- Minerva Mills (1980).
- Which Article gives Parliament the amending power?
- Article 368.
Asked before in UPSC
Recurring theme: Limits on Parliament's amending power and the basic structure doctrine
The substantive limitation the question asks about is the basic structure doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati.
Kesavananda Bharati is the source of the rule that Article 368 cannot be used to destroy the basic structure, so it anchors the core of this answer.
I.R. Coelho applied the Kesavananda basic structure test to Ninth Schedule laws, so the two cases are answered together.
The question opens with the basic structure doctrine, which the Court invented in Kesavananda Bharati.
Kesavananda Bharati is the leading example of the Court checking Parliament's amending power, followed by Minerva Mills and later cases.
Tests that 'basic structure' is not defined in the constitutional text but is a judicial creation dating to Kesavananda Bharati.
The basics
Why it matters
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the most important constitutional case in India. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure, which keeps majorities from rewriting the Constitution's core.
The road to the case
The case settled a long conflict between Parliament and the courts over the amending power.
- 1951Shankari Prasad: Parliament can amend fundamental rights
- 1967Golak Nath: it cannot
- 197124th Amendment restores the power
- 1973Kesavananda: basic structure limit
- 1980Minerva Mills applies it
What the basic structure includes
The Court did not give a closed list; later cases added features.
- 1Supremacy of the ConstitutionParliament is bound by it
- 2Judicial reviewCourts can test laws
- 3Secularism and federalismCore design principles
- 4Free and fair electionsDemocratic foundation
You now know
- Decided in 1973 by a 13-judge bench, 7:6.
- Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
- It cannot alter the basic structure.
- Minerva Mills (1980) and later cases applied the doctrine.
Go deeper
In one line: Parliament can change almost anything in the Constitution, except the features that make it the Constitution.
Why it matters for UPSC
It is the foundation of judicial review of amendments and appears in almost every Polity paper.
The core idea
Think of the Constitution as a building: rooms can be rebuilt, but the foundation cannot be removed. Courts decide what counts as the foundation case by case, as in Minerva Mills and later in the NJAC case. The doctrine grew out of the conflict set off by Golak Nath case.
Where to go next
- Golak Nath case: The case that denied Parliament the power
- Minerva Mills: The doctrine in action
In one line: The doctrine gives courts the final word on constitutional identity, which is both its strength and its main criticism.
Criticism
It is not in the text, the list of basic features is open-ended, and unelected judges can overrule constitutional amendments.
Defence
It protected democracy after the Emergency, and many countries have since adopted similar ideas.
Applications
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), I.R. Coelho (2007) on the Ninth Schedule, and the NJAC case (2015).
Where to go next
- Golak Nath case: The case that denied Parliament the power
- Minerva Mills: The doctrine in action
Golak Nath case
The case that denied Parliament the power
In one line: In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), an 11-judge bench held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
Reasoning
An amendment was treated as 'law' under Article 13, so it could not abridge fundamental rights.
Response
The 24th Amendment (1971) clarified that Article 13 does not apply to amendments, and Kesavananda later overruled Golak Nath.
Where to go next
- Minerva Mills: The doctrine in action
Minerva Mills
The doctrine in action
In one line: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that barred judicial review of amendments.
Key holdings
Limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features, and there must be a balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.
Significance
It confirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine.
Where to go next
- Golak Nath case: The case that denied Parliament the power
Prelims-style quiz
The basic structure doctrine was laid down in:
- Golak Nath
- Maneka Gandhi
- Kesavananda Bharati
- Minerva Mills
Show answer
Answer: (c) Kesavananda Bharati. Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Consider the following:
1. Kesavananda Bharati was decided by a 13-judge bench.
2. It held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights at all.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 only. It overruled Golak Nath on this point; rights can be amended if the basic structure is intact.
Which case first applied the basic structure doctrine to strike down parts of the 42nd Amendment?
- Minerva Mills
- I.R. Coelho
- Waman Rao
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Show answer
Answer: (a) Minerva Mills. Minerva Mills (1980).
The power to amend the Constitution is in:
- Article 352
- Article 370
- Article 368
- Article 356
Show answer
Answer: (c) Article 368. Article 368.