Context: The Supreme Court of India released a video in 10 Indian languages, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment delivered on April 24, 1973.

• The Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, redefining the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The judgment introduced the basic structure doctrine, asserting that the Constitution has an inherent framework that cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments.

• 7-6 Decision: The Supreme Court, in a narrow decision, established its authority to invalidate constitutional amendments violating this basic structure.

Key Outcomes

• Limitation on Parliamentary Power: The doctrine restricts Parliament’s ability to amend key constitutional features like the separation of powers.

• Judicial Review Reinforcement: It built upon the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, allowing for the review of amendments affecting the Constitution’s basic structure.

• Article 31-C and Judicial Review: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Article 31-C’s first provision, stating that amendments implementing Directive Principles, which do not disturb the basic structure, are not subject to judicial review.

Criticism of the Basic Structure Doctrine

• Dilution of Parliamentary Powers: Critics argue that the doctrine undermines parliamentary sovereignty and disrupts the separation of powers.

• Ambiguity Concerns: The doctrine’s perceived vagueness and subjectivity in judicial review have also been points of contention.

Landmark Cases Involving the Doctrine

• Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): The Court applied the Kesavananda doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment, which sought to immunize the elections of top officials from judicial scrutiny.

• Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated a clause in Article 368, asserting that Parliament’s constituent power had no limitations.

• P Sambamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1986): The Court struck down part of the 32nd Amendment related to the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh.

• L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997): The Court nullified a portion of the 42nd Amendment that established administrative tribunals and excluded High Court judicial review.

Significance of the Judgment and the Doctrine

• Empowerment of Judicial Review: The doctrine underpins the judiciary’s authority to review and potentially override constitutional amendments by Parliament.

• Clarification of Article 368: It distinguishes Article 368 as a procedural mechanism for amendment, not a power to alter the Constitution’s core or basic structure.

• Proponents of the basic structure doctrine consider it to be a safety valve against majoritarian authoritarianism. 

• It is plausible that the 1975 Emergency could have had far more deleterious effects on the health of Indian democracy if the basic structure doctrine was not there.

• Harmony with Legislative Authority: Justice Shastri emphasized that judicial review is a constitutional duty, not an attempt to undermine legislative power.

• Checks and Balances System: The Kesavananda Bharati verdict underscored that judicial review serves as a check and balance, ensuring constitutional functionaries remain within their prescribed limits.

• The significance of the case lies in the fact that the verdict has stood sentinel to the basic features of the Constitution such as secularism, religious freedom and federalism for 50 long years.

Criticisms

• Vague and uncertain: The judgment does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution, which has led to a great deal of debate about which amendments are valid and which are not.

• Dilutes Parliamentary Sovereignty: The judgment gave the Supreme Court the power to strike down amendments passed by Parliament, which has been seen by many as a violation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

• Judicial overreach: The doctrine amounts to judicial overreach over the legislature, which is itself undemocratic.

• Government has time and again criticized the orders of the judiciary. For instance, the Supreme Court declaring the NJAC Act unconstitutional.

• Promotes rigidity: The doctrine of basic structure has been seen as a barrier to necessary reforms of the Constitution. For example, changes the collegium system of judiciary.

Road Ahead

• Despite criticisms, the case has thus had far-reaching consequences for the constitutional development of India, making it one of the most significant cases in Indian constitutional law.

• The judgment has helped to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and the democratic character of the Indian Constitution.