Scribd
Upload
10 views1 page

Basic Structure Case

The Basic Structure doctrine asserts that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament, established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973). The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. This landmark decision has since recognized elements such as supremacy, secularism, democracy, and Fundamental Rights as integral to the Constitution's identity.

Uploaded by

narayan5140607
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views1 page

Basic Structure Case

The Basic Structure doctrine asserts that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament, established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973). The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. This landmark decision has since recognized elements such as supremacy, secularism, democracy, and Fundamental Rights as integral to the Constitution's identity.

Uploaded by

narayan5140607
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution – With Reference to Kesavananda Bharati Case

The Basic Structure doctrine is a constitutional principle that certain essential features of the Indian
Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be amended, even by Parliament.

This doctrine was established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which
was brought by Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious head of a mutt in Kerala. He challenged the Kerala
government’s land reform laws, claiming they violated his Fundamental Rights, especially the right to
property.

The case led to the largest-ever constitutional bench of 13 judges in the Supreme Court. The main question
was: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368?

The Court ruled by a narrow 7:6 majority that: - Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution,
including Fundamental Rights. - However, it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” or framework of the
Constitution.

The judgment did not define the basic structure exhaustively, but over time, elements like the supremacy of
the Constitution, secularism, democracy, judicial review, federalism, and Fundamental Rights have been
recognized as part of it.

This case marked a turning point in Indian constitutional law, placing necessary checks on the Parliament’s
amending powers and preserving the core identity of the Constitution.

You might also like