For which one of the following judgements of the Supreme Court of India, the Kesavananda Bharati vs State of India case is considered a landmark ?

1. Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution (basic)

Welcome to your first step in understanding how the Indian Constitution evolves! To understand the Basic Structure Doctrine, we must first understand the tool used to shape it: Article 368. In a democracy, a Constitution is never a static, frozen document; it is a living document that must adapt to the changing needs of the people. Our founding fathers, therefore, provided a mechanism for amendment in Part XX of the Constitution Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Amendment of the Constitution, p.123.

The Indian approach to amendments is unique—it is a synthesis of flexibility and rigidity. While some parts can be changed by a simple majority (like a regular law), others require a special majority of Parliament. This ensures that while the Constitution can grow, it cannot be changed on a whim. Under Article 368, Parliament exercises what we call 'Constituent Power'—this is a special power higher than ordinary law-making power, allowing it to add, vary, or repeal any provision Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Procedure for Amendment, p.196.

In the early years of the Republic, the scope of this power was a major point of debate. Specifically, could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? The following table summarizes the early judicial journey that led to our current understanding:

Initially, the Supreme Court held that the word "law" in Article 13 (which prohibits the State from making laws that take away rights) referred only to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments. This gave Parliament seemingly unlimited power to rewrite the Constitution, as long as they followed the procedure in Article 368 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.127. It was this absolute power that eventually set the stage for the birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Amendment of the Constitution, p.123; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Procedure for Amendment, p.196; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.127

2. Early Challenges: Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh Cases (intermediate)

In the early years of the Republic, India faced a significant tension between the Right to Property (then a Fundamental Right) and the government's push for land reforms to abolish the zamindari system. When high courts began striking down land reform laws, Parliament enacted the 1st Amendment Act (1951), which introduced the 9th Schedule to shield certain laws from judicial review. This set the stage for a classic constitutional tug-of-war: Does Parliament have the power to amend Fundamental Rights? Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90, p.645.

The first major challenge came in the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India (1951) case. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if a Constitutional Amendment is considered a "law" under Article 13(2). Article 13 states that any "law" that abridges Fundamental Rights shall be void. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Parliament, making a crucial distinction between ordinary law (legislative power) and constitutional law (constituent power). The Court held that the word "law" in Article 13 does not include amendments made under Article 368. Therefore, Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90, p.624.

This view was reaffirmed over a decade later in Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1964), which challenged the 17th Amendment Act. The majority of the bench agreed with the Shankari Prasad ruling, maintaining that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was unlimited. However, this case is historically significant because two judges, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, expressed dissenting doubts. They questioned whether Fundamental Rights—the very soul of the Constitution—should be so easily changeable. Justice Mudholkar even wondered if every Constitution has certain "basic features" that must remain permanent—the very first seed of what would eventually become the Basic Structure Doctrine. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90, p.626.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.624; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 90: Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.645

3. The Golaknath Shift: Parliament's Power Restricted (intermediate)

To understand the Golaknath case (1967), we must first look at the tug-of-war between the Judiciary and Parliament that preceded it. In the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court held a very permissive view of Parliament’s powers. In cases like Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964), the Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, because a Constitutional Amendment was not considered a "law" under the restrictive definition of Article 13 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626.

However, in 1967, the tide turned dramatically. In I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab, an 11-judge bench delivered a bombshell verdict. The Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are "transcendental and immutable," meaning they are so essential that even Parliament cannot abridge or take them away. The logic was simple but profound: the Court declared that a Constitutional Amendment Act under Article 368 is indeed a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2). Therefore, if an amendment violates a Fundamental Right, it must be declared void Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626.

To avoid absolute chaos and the undoing of previous land reforms, the Court introduced the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling. This meant that the new restriction on Parliament would only apply to future amendments; it did not invalidate the changes Parliament had already made in the past Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.665. This case set the stage for a massive constitutional confrontation, as it effectively stripped the government of its primary tool for social and economic restructuring.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.665

4. Judicial Review and the Scope of Article 13 (basic)

5. Legislative Response: 24th and 25th Amendments (intermediate)

Welcome back! After the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling in the Golak Nath case (1967)—which basically told Parliament it couldn't touch Fundamental Rights—the stage was set for a massive constitutional tug-of-war. The government, led by Indira Gandhi, felt that these judicial restrictions were blocking essential socialist reforms like land redistribution and bank nationalization. To reclaim its power, the legislature launched a "counter-attack" through two very significant amendments in 1971.

1. The 24th Amendment Act (1971): The Power Play

The primary goal of the 24th Amendment was to bypass the Golaknath verdict. Remember, the Court had argued that a Constitutional Amendment is just another "law" under Article 13 and therefore cannot violate Fundamental Rights. To fix this from their perspective, Parliament amended both Article 13 and Article 368. It explicitly stated that nothing in Article 13 would apply to amendments made under Article 368 Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Procedure for Amendment, p.194. Effectively, they were saying: "Constitutional amendments are 'superior' to regular laws and are not subject to the same limitations regarding Fundamental Rights." It also made it mandatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill.

2. The 25th Amendment Act (1971): Property and DPSP

This amendment took the battle into the territory of social policy. It did two major things:

• It curtailed the Right to Property by replacing the word "compensation" with the word "amount," meaning the government didn't have to pay market value for land it took for public use.
• It introduced the infamous Article 31C. This clause stated that if Parliament passed a law to give effect to the Directive Principles (specifically Article 39(b) and (c) regarding resource distribution), that law could not be challenged in court for violating Fundamental Rights like equality (Article 14) or freedom of speech (Article 19) Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.94.

These amendments represented the peak of Parliamentary Sovereignty in India. The legislature was essentially claiming that there were no limits to its power to change the Constitution. This set the perfect "pressure cooker" environment for the judiciary to eventually respond with the Basic Structure Doctrine in the next step of our journey.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Procedure for Amendment, p.194; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.94

6. The Basic Structure Doctrine: Kesavananda Bharati Case (exam-level)

The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case is arguably the most significant judicial pronouncement in the history of the Indian Republic. It involved the largest-ever bench of 13 judges and was decided by a narrow 7:6 majority. This case was the culmination of a long-standing conflict between the Parliament's desire to exercise unlimited power to amend the Constitution and the Judiciary's duty to protect its core identity Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p. 626.

The Supreme Court delivered a "middle path" verdict. It overruled its previous stand in the Golak Nath case (1967), which had completely barred Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights. In Kesavananda Bharati, the Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 — including the Fundamental Rights — it does not have the power to alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Think of it like a house: you can change the paint, the windows, or the furniture, but you cannot remove the foundation and the load-bearing pillars that hold the house up Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter 9, p. 211.

Interestingly, the Court did not provide a definitive list of what constitutes the 'Basic Structure.' Instead, it left it to be discovered on a case-by-case basis. However, the judges highlighted several essential features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the secular character, federalism, and the separation of powers. The ruling also clarified that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and reflects its basic objectives, making it a key guide to understanding the basic structure Politics in India since Independence, NCERT Class XII, The Crisis of Democratic Order, p. 97.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.626; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Chapter 9: Constitution as a Living Document, p.211; Politics in India since Independence, NCERT Class XII, The Crisis of Democratic Order, p.97

7. Evolution of Basic Structure and the Preamble (exam-level)

One of the most profound debates in Indian constitutional history was whether the Preamble—the soul of our Constitution—could be changed by Parliament. To understand the Basic Structure Doctrine, we must look at how the Supreme Court's view on the Preamble evolved. Initially, in the Berubari Union case (1960), the Court held that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution, meaning it could not be a source of substantive power or limitations. However, this changed drastically in the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case. The Court corrected its earlier view, asserting that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and serves as a vital guide to interpreting the spirit of the document Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Preamble of the Constitution, p.48.

In the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, a 13-judge bench (the largest ever) ruled that while Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. It cannot be used to destroy the 'Basic Structure'. The Court noted that the Preamble contains the fundamental features of the Constitution—such as sovereignty, democracy, and secularism. Therefore, the Preamble can be amended, but its 'basic features' must remain untouched. This ensures that while the Constitution is a "living document" that can evolve, its core identity remains shielded from political whims Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT 2025 ed., Chapter 9: Constitution as a Living Document, p.211.

It is important to remember two technical characteristics of the Preamble: it is non-justiciable (its provisions are not enforceable in a court of law) and it is neither a source of power to the legislature nor a prohibition upon it Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Preamble of the Constitution, p.47. Later, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court further fortified the Basic Structure by ruling that the Constitution granted Parliament only a limited amending power; therefore, Parliament cannot use that limited power to grant itself unlimited power Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Preamble of the Constitution, p.47-48; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT 2025 ed., Chapter 9: CONSTITUTION AS A LIVING DOCUMENT, p.211; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Basic Structure of the Constitution, p.128

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Throughout your learning path, you have explored the dynamic tension between Parliamentary sovereignty and Judicial review. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) represents the ultimate synthesis of these concepts. As discussed in Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, this case resolved the long-standing conflict over whether the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute. By connecting the Preamble’s vision with the operational parts of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established that the document possesses an immutable core. This transition from a literal interpretation to a purposive interpretation is the foundational building block you need to master for high-level constitutional questions.

To arrive at the correct answer, (C) The basic structures of the Constitution, as defined in the Preamble, cannot be changed, you must look for the "limitation" principle. Think of it this way: while Parliament can renovate the house (the Constitution), it cannot tear down the foundation (the Basic Structure). The 13-judge bench—the largest in Indian history—ruled that while Parliament has wide powers, it cannot alter the "essential features" or the "soul" of the Constitution. As noted in Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT, this doctrine ensures that the Constitution remains a living document while preserving its original identity and democratic values.

UPSC frequently uses "distractor" options that reference other famous legal principles to test your precision. For instance, Option (A) touches upon secularism and political mobilization, which was more central to the S.R. Bommai case. Option (B) refers to Article 17, which was a result of constitutional drafting rather than this specific judgment. Option (D) describes the suspension of Right to Life, a dark chapter associated with the ADM Jabalpur case. By identifying that Kesavananda Bharati is synonymous with the Basic Structure Doctrine, you can cut through these traps and focus on the structural integrity of the Constitution.