Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala
Timeline
Cause title and case names
The short version
A seer in northern Kerala went to court because the state wanted to cap what his monastery could own. The case grew into a question that had nothing to do with land: can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution it likes?
The Supreme Court said Parliament can amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but it cannot change its basic structure. Thirteen judges heard it for 68 days. The majority was one vote. Almost every constitutional fight since has been argued in the shadow of that line.
What the case was about
Swami Kesavananda Bharati headed the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod district, which at the time was in Kerala. The mutt held agricultural land. On 21 Mar 1970 he moved the Supreme Court against the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969, under which the state had moved to take control of part of that property.
His first arguments were narrow: the law interfered with the mutt's right to manage its own religious affairs under Articles 25 and 26, and with his property rights.
The case did not stay narrow for long. The Supreme Court had held in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all. Parliament answered with the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments, which restored its amending power, cut down the right to compensation for property and placed the Kerala land laws in the Ninth Schedule. The seer's petition was amended to challenge all of that. Now the Court was being asked whether Golaknath was right.
Nani Palkhivala led the argument for the petitioner, and he was careful to say the case was about the Constitution, not the mutt's fields.
Who was involved
| Side | Who | Counsel |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt | Nani Palkhivala, with Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee |
| Respondent | State of Kerala | H.M. Seervai |
| Respondent | Union of India | Attorney General Niren De |
Issues before the Court
- Was Golaknath (1967) correctly decided, so that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights?
- Does the power to amend in Article 368 allow Parliament to change any provision of the Constitution, or are there limits?
- Was the 24th Amendment, which said Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, valid?
- Was the 25th Amendment valid, in particular the new Article 31C that protected certain laws from being challenged for violating fundamental rights?
- Was the 29th Amendment, which placed the Kerala land laws in the Ninth Schedule, valid?
How it reached the Supreme Court
It did not come through a High Court or a tribunal. Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court in 1970, complaining of a violation of fundamental rights. Kerala's High Court never decided it.
The challenge to the three constitutional amendments was added once those amendments were passed in 1971 and 1972. Because the question was whether an earlier 11-judge ruling should stand, the Chief Justice, S.M. Sikri, put together a bench of thirteen.
The bench
Thirteen judges sat, which is still the largest bench in the Court's history. The Chief Justice was S.M. Sikri, and the day of judgment was his last day in office.
| Judge | Side |
|---|---|
| S.M. Sikri, CJ | Majority |
| J.M. Shelat | Majority |
| A.N. Grover | Majority |
| K.S. Hegde | Majority |
| A.K. Mukherjea | Majority |
| P. Jaganmohan Reddy | Majority |
| H.R. Khanna | Majority, with a separate opinion that decided the outcome |
| A.N. Ray | Dissent |
| D.G. Palekar | Dissent |
| K.K. Mathew | Dissent |
| M.H. Beg | Dissent |
| S.N. Dwivedi | Dissent |
| Y.V. Chandrachud | Dissent |
Khanna J. held the swing position. His opinion drew the line that the Constitution can be amended but its basic structure cannot, and it carried the majority.
The hearing
- Arguments began on 31 Oct 1972 and ended on 23 Mar 1973.
- The Court sat for 68 days. That remains the longest hearing in its history.
- Judgment was pronounced on 24 Apr 1973.
- The Court sat for 68 days over about five months, with eleven separate opinions delivered on the last day.
The Chief Justice's one-page statement of the majority view was signed in court by nine of the thirteen judges. The other four refused to sign it. Some critics have said the statement stitched together a majority that the separate opinions do not clearly show, which is why people are careful about any count beyond 7:6.
What the Court held
- Golaknath was overruled. Parliament can amend fundamental rights.
- That power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to destroy or change the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
- The 24th Amendment was valid.
- The 29th Amendment was valid in itself. The Ninth Schedule laws are protected from fundamental rights challenges, though the Court later said (in Coelho, 2007) that laws put there after 24 Apr 1973 can still be tested against the basic structure.
- The first part of Article 31C, which protects laws that carry out certain directive principles from a fundamental rights challenge, was upheld. The second part, which kept courts from even reviewing such laws, was struck down.
- The Court did not list the basic features once and for all. The judges named different ones in their opinions, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers and federalism. Later benches have added more.
What changed afterwards
The first effect came within days. The government went past the three most senior judges, Shelat, Hegde and Grover, who were all in the majority, and appointed A.N. Ray, who had dissented, as Chief Justice. All three superseded judges resigned. It broke the practice of the senior-most judge becoming Chief Justice.
The doctrine was tested quickly. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) the Court struck down part of the 39th Amendment, which had put the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial review, using the basic structure idea.
In November 1975, with the Emergency in force, Chief Justice Ray constituted a fresh bench of thirteen judges to look at Kesavananda again. Critics said it had been put together to reach a different result.
Palkhivala argued for two days, on 10 and 11 Nov 1975. On the morning of 12 Nov 1975 the Chief Justice dissolved the bench, and the review never went further.
Parliament's reply was the 42nd Amendment (1976), which tried to put its amending power beyond challenge. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) the Court struck down those clauses. The doctrine has since been applied to Presidential rule (S.R. Bommai, 1994), the power of High Courts to review laws (L. Chandra Kumar, 1997) and the appointment of judges (the NJAC case, 2015).
Outside India, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh adopted the doctrine in Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (1989).
Terms used on this page
- Basic structure: the features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot amend away, however large its majority.
- Ninth Schedule: a list of laws put beyond fundamental rights challenge, added by the First Amendment in 1951.
- Article 368: the provision that sets out how the Constitution is amended.
This page has been prepared with reference to the original judgment and the following articles: Open magazine: Kesavananda Bharati, The Seer Who Dared; Supreme Court Observer: S.M. Sikri; "This Bench Is Dissolved", LiveLaw. It was last checked on 20 Oct 2026.
AI tools were also used to improve and verify this page. If we have missed or got something wrong, please let us know.