Supreme Court · Article 368 · 13 Judges · 7–6

Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Basic Structure Doctrine, 1951–2026

📅 Last updated: 6 November 2026📖 22 dated entries, 1951 to 2026✎ By Nazish Fatima

Written & reviewed by Nazish Fatima · Updated November 6, 2026

In short

Explore the Kesavananda Bharati case timeline, the 1973 Supreme Court verdict, the Basic Structure Doctrine and its impact on Indian constitutional law.

Latest Story

History58 Days to Andhra StateWhy does this story matter?PoliticsDeath, Life, Then Release?What's really at stake here?PoliticsWhy Did the 11 Go Back to Jail?What's really at stake here?PoliticsWas Mayawati Ever Tried?What's really at stake here?Politics2001 Parliament Attack Timeline: Legal and Political ArcWhat's really at stake here?

The Kesavananda Bharati case began in March 1970 as a challenge by the head of a religious institution in Kerala to the state’s land-reform laws. By the time it was decided, on 24 April 1973, it had become a test of a much larger question: can Parliament change the Constitution in any way it likes? A 13-judge bench, the largest the Supreme Court has ever assembled, answered by 7 to 6. Parliament can amend any provision, Fundamental Rights included, but it cannot destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. This timeline traces the dispute from the 1951 rulings that came before it to the cases that applied the doctrine afterwards, using the judgments themselves.

💡 Short Answer

On 24 April 1973, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a 13-judge Supreme Court bench held by 7 to 6 that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter its basic structure. It overruled Golak Nath (1967), upheld the 24th and 29th Amendments, and struck down part of the 25th.

⚡ The Case at a Glance

Petition filed21 March 1970, W.P. 135 of 1970

Judgment24 April 1973

Bench13 judges, 11 opinions

Majority7–6, Chief Justice S.M. Sikri

ProvisionArticle 368, amending power

Amendments tested24th, 25th and 29th

⚡ Quick Answers — AI Overview Ready

Kesavananda Bharati Case: Key Questions

What did the Kesavananda Bharati case decide?

That Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited. It can amend any provision, including Fundamental Rights, but not damage or destroy the basic structure. The 13-judge bench split 7–6 on 24 April 1973.

What is the basic structure doctrine?

A judge-made limit on constitutional amendments. Features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, democracy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers and judicial review cannot be destroyed by amendment. Courts decide case by case what counts as basic.

Why did a Kerala land dispute reach a 13-judge bench?

While Kesavananda Bharati’s 1970 petition was pending, Parliament passed the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments, the last protecting Kerala’s land laws. Challenging them meant reconsidering Golak Nath, an 11-judge ruling, which needed a larger bench.

Has the basic structure doctrine been used since?

Yes. The court used it to strike down Article 329A(4) in 1975, parts of the 42nd Amendment in Minerva Mills in 1980, and the 99th Amendment creating the NJAC in 2015. It also governs challenges to laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973.

📚 Key Takeaways

The Case in Ten Points

The petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala.
The petition: filed on 21 March 1970 against Kerala’s land-reform laws.
The amendments: the 24th (1971), 25th (1972) and 29th (1972) widened the dispute.
The bench: 13 judges, the largest in the court’s history.
The verdict: 7–6 on 24 April 1973; Golak Nath overruled.
The rule: Parliament may amend any provision but not the basic structure.
The amendments’ fate: 24th and 29th upheld; part of Article 31C struck down.
The backlash: three majority judges were superseded the next day.
The test: the 1975 review bench was dissolved, and the 42nd Amendment’s bar fell in 1980.
The legacy: 24 April 1973 is now a legal cut-off date for Ninth Schedule laws.

How to read this page: the 1973 judgment is not a single opinion. Thirteen judges wrote eleven opinions, and the doctrine is drawn from what the seven majority judges held together, as stated in a summary signed by nine of them. No opinion gave a closed list of basic features. Where we describe what was decided, we use the judgments themselves; dates of later cases are the dates the judgments were delivered, not the year of the law report.

Timeline: From Land Reform to Constitutional Limits

Newest first. Colour shows which phase each event belongs to.

Doctrine appliedThe 1973 verdictAmendmentsPetitionEarlier rulings

Nov 2026

Where the basic structure doctrine stands Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Status as of 6 November 2026Kesavananda Bharati has not been overruled

The rule: Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights, but an amendment that damages or destroys the basic structure can be struck down by the courts.

The record: The Supreme Court has applied the test to strike down parts of the 39th, 42nd and 99th Amendments. No larger bench has been constituted to reconsider the 1973 ruling since the 1975 review bench was dissolved.

Still the law: a 7-6 majority from 1973 governs every constitutional amendment.

24 Apr 2023

Supreme Court marks 50 years with a dedicated web page Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Announced by Chief Justice D.Y. ChandrachudArguments, written submissions and the judgment

What was published: On the judgment’s 50th anniversary the Supreme Court put the case record online on a page titled “The Basic Structure Judgment”: the written submissions, reference material and the judgment, with a Hindi version.

The context: The doctrine had been publicly questioned months earlier. In January 2023 Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised it at a conference of presiding officers in Jaipur, and Chief Justice Chandrachud described the basic structure as a “north star” in a lecture later that month.

Fifty years on: the full case record became public.

6 Sep 2020

Kesavananda Bharati dies at the Edneer Mutt Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Kasaragod, KeralaHead of the Mutt since 1961

The petitioner: The seer died at the Edneer Mutt, aged 79, after age-related illness. He had become its head as a young man in 1961.

The irony: His own fight was about land. The Kerala land-reform laws he challenged survived, protected through the Ninth Schedule, yet the case carrying his name became the best-known judgment in Indian constitutional law.

He lost the land dispute but gave his name to the doctrine.

16 Oct 2015

NJAC struck down: judicial independence is basic structure Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of IndiaFive judges; 4-1, Justice J. Chelameswar dissenting

The amendment: The 99th Amendment, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act replaced the collegium with a commission that included the Law Minister and two “eminent persons”.

The ruling: The majority held that giving the executive a say that could outvote the judiciary in appointments damaged the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature, and restored the collegium system.

An amendment passed by Parliament and ratified by the states still failed the basic-structure test.

11 Jan 2007

I.R. Coelho: no blanket shield for the Ninth Schedule Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Y.K. SabharwalUnanimous

The question: Could Parliament put any law beyond review simply by listing it in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B?

The answer: No. Laws added to the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 can be tested against Fundamental Rights, and struck down if the violation damages the basic structure. Laws added before that date keep their protection, as Waman Rao had held.

The date of the Kesavananda judgment became a constitutional cut-off line.

13 Nov 1980

Waman Rao fixes 24 April 1973 as the dividing line Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Waman Rao v. Union of IndiaFive judges, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud presiding; order first announced on 9 May 1980

The holding: All Acts placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 receive the full protection of Article 31B. Amendments to the Ninth Schedule made on or after that date are open to challenge on the ground that they damage the basic structure.

Why that date: The court reasoned that titles and transactions had been settled for years on the faith that pre-1973 Ninth Schedule laws were immune.

Often dated 1981 from its law-report citation; the judgment was delivered on 13 November 1980.

31 Jul 1980

Minerva Mills: limited amending power is itself basic Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Minerva Mills v. Union of IndiaFive judges, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud; reasons for the order of 9 May 1980

What fell: Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to bar courts from questioning amendments and to declare Parliament’s amending power unlimited, and Section 4, which extended Article 31C to all Directive Principles.

The principle: A limited amending power is one of the basic features, so Parliament cannot use that power to make itself unlimited. The Constitution rests on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Justice P.N. Bhagwati agreed on Section 55 but dissented on Section 4.

Parliament cannot amend away the limits on its own power.

18 Dec 1976

The 42nd Amendment tries to close the door Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Enacted during the EmergencyInserted Article 368(4) and (5)

What it said: No constitutional amendment “shall be called in question in any court on any ground”, and “there shall be no limitation whatever” on Parliament’s constituent power.

What happened: The Supreme Court struck down both clauses in Minerva Mills in 1980.

A direct legislative answer to Kesavananda that lasted under four years.

10-12 Nov 1975

A 13-judge bench to review Kesavananda is dissolved Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Convened by Chief Justice A.N. RayNo review petition had been filed

What happened: Chief Justice Ray, who had been in the 1973 minority, assembled a fresh 13-judge bench to reconsider the judgment. Nani Palkhivala argued against any review over two days of hearings.

The end: On the morning of 12 November 1975 the Chief Justice announced that the bench was dissolved. No order on the merits was given.

The only attempt in court to reverse the doctrine lasted three days.

7 Nov 1975

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: the first strike-down Doctrine applied 1975-2026

Five judges, Chief Justice A.N. Ray presidingDuring the Emergency

The amendment: Article 329A(4), added by the 39th Amendment in August 1975, declared the Prime Minister’s 1971 election valid and beyond challenge, whatever any court had held.

The ruling: The court struck down clause (4) as violating the basic structure, citing free and fair elections and the rule of law. It still upheld Indira Gandhi’s election, applying retrospective changes to election law.

Two years after Kesavananda, the doctrine was used for the first time.

Apr 1973

Three judges of the majority are superseded The 1973 verdict

A.N. Ray named Chief Justice after Sikri retiresSworn in on 26 April 1973

What happened: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri retired the day after the judgment. The government appointed Justice A.N. Ray, who had been in the minority, over three more senior judges from the majority: J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde and A.N. Grover.

The response: All three resigned. The supersession became a lasting part of the debate over executive influence on the judiciary.

The judges who formed the majority paid a price for it.

24 Apr 1973

The 7-6 verdict: Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure The 1973 verdict

13 judges, 11 separate opinionsChief Justice S.M. Sikri presiding

The holding: Golak Nath was overruled: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, Fundamental Rights included. But Article 368 does not enable it to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.

The amendments: The 24th Amendment was upheld. The 25th was upheld except the second part of Article 31C, which barred courts from asking whether a law declared to give effect to Article 39(b) and (c) actually did. The 29th Amendment was upheld.

The majority: Chief Justice Sikri and Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy and Khanna. Justice Khanna’s opinion, accepting the amendment of Fundamental Rights but not the destruction of the Constitution’s basic framework, decided the split.

Nine judges signed a summary of “the view by majority”; the doctrine comes from that combined reading.

Oct 1972 – Mar 1973

Six petitions before the largest bench in Indian history The 1973 verdict

13 judgesNani Palkhivala for the petitioners

The bench: Chief Justice Sikri and Justices Shelat, Hegde, Grover, A.N. Ray, Jaganmohan Reddy, Palekar, Khanna, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea and Y.V. Chandrachud. It was convened because only a larger bench could reconsider the 11-judge ruling in Golak Nath.

The arguments: Six writ petitions raised common questions on the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments. Nani Palkhivala argued that the amending power had implied limits; Attorney General Niren De and H.M. Seervai, for Kerala, argued that it had none.

No Indian bench before or since has had more than 13 judges.

9 Jun 1972

The 29th Amendment shields two Kerala land laws Amendments 1971-72

Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972

What it did: It placed the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1969 and 1971 in the Ninth Schedule, so they could not be challenged for violating Fundamental Rights under Article 31B.

Why it mattered: These were the very laws Kesavananda Bharati had challenged. His petition was amended to attack the amendment itself.

The amendment was aimed squarely at the pending case.

20 Apr 1972

The 25th Amendment adds Article 31C Amendments 1971-72

Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971

What it did: It replaced “compensation” in Article 31(2) with “amount”, and inserted Article 31C: laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c), on the distribution of material resources, could not be struck down under Articles 14, 19 or 31.

The second limb: Article 31C also said no law declaring that it gave effect to that policy could be questioned on the ground that it did not. In 1973 the court struck down this part.

Directive Principles were given priority over three Fundamental Rights.

5 Nov 1971

The 24th Amendment answers Golak Nath Amendments 1971-72

Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971President’s assent on 5 November 1971

What it did: It amended Article 368 to state that Parliament may amend “by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision” of the Constitution, added Article 13(4) so amendments are not “law” under Article 13, and made the President’s assent to amendment bills mandatory.

The vote: The Lok Sabha passed it 384 to 23 and the Rajya Sabha 177 to 8, according to the judgment.

Passed after the 1971 election gave Indira Gandhi’s Congress a two-thirds majority.

1971

Kerala amends its land law again Petition 1969-71

Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Act 25 of 1971)

What changed: Kerala tightened its land-reform framework further while the petition was pending.

The petition grows: The petitioner was allowed to urge additional grounds, challenging the 1971 Act and the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments that protected the state’s laws.

A land dispute became a challenge to Parliament’s power itself.

21 Mar 1970

Kesavananda Bharati files Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 Petition 1969-71

Under Article 32, directly in the Supreme CourtHead of the Edneer Mutt, Kasaragod

The challenge: He sought to strike down the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969, which restricted the land the Mutt could hold.

The rights invoked: Articles 25 and 26 on religious freedom and the management of religious affairs, together with Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 on equality and property.

The case began as a dispute over a religious institution’s land.

1969

Kerala’s land-reform law is tightened Petition 1969-71

Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969)

The law: The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964) was already in the Ninth Schedule. The 1969 amendment changed it further, and the petitioner said the amended provisions affected the Mutt’s property and its rights as a religious denomination.

This amended law was the first target of the petition.

27 Feb 1967

Golak Nath: Fundamental Rights placed beyond amendment Earlier rulings 1951-67

I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab11 judges, Chief Justice K. Subba Rao; 6-5

The holding: A constitutional amendment is “law” under Article 13(2), so Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.

The limit: Applying prospective overruling, the court left earlier amendments, including the First, Fourth and Seventeenth, in force.

Overruled six years later, it forced the question that Kesavananda answered.

30 Oct 1964

Sajjan Singh: the power upheld, with doubts Earlier rulings 1951-67

Sajjan Singh v. State of RajasthanFive judges, Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar

The holding: The 17th Amendment was upheld, and with it Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.

The doubts: Justices M. Hidayatullah and J.R. Mudholkar concurred but questioned whether the power was unlimited. Justice Mudholkar asked whether changing a “basic feature” was amendment at all, an idea Kesavananda later took up.

Often dated 1965 from its law report; decided on 30 October 1964.

5 Oct 1951

Shankari Prasad: amendments are not “law” Earlier rulings 1951-67

Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of IndiaFive judges, Chief Justice H.J. Kania; unanimous

The holding: The First Amendment, 1951, which added Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule, was valid. An amendment under Article 368 is not “law” under Article 13, so it can abridge Fundamental Rights.

Why it matters: It created the Ninth Schedule device that later amendments, including the 29th, used to protect land-reform laws.

The starting point: Parliament’s amending power read broadly.

The 7–6 Vote

Thirteen judges, two answers to one question.

How the 13 judges of the Kesavananda Bharati bench divided on 24 April 1973: majority of seven, Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and Justices Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea, Jaganmohan Reddy and Khanna, holding that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure; minority of six, Justices A.N. Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi and Chandrachud, holding the amending power unlimited — Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion is widely treated as the one that decided the split.

The majority did not reason identically. Six of the seven held that the amending power carried implied limits that protected essential features, including much of Part III. Justice Khanna went further than his colleagues on one point and less far on another: he accepted that Fundamental Rights, including the right to property, could be amended, but held that “amendment” could not mean abrogating the Constitution’s basic structure or framework. That narrower position is the one that commanded a majority, and it is why the doctrine is stated as a limit on destroying the structure, not as a ban on changing Fundamental Rights.

What Exactly Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The summary of the view by majority, point by point.

What the Supreme Court decided on each amendment in Kesavananda Bharati: Golak Nath overruled; 24th Amendment valid; 25th Amendment, change from compensation to amount valid, first part of Article 31C valid, second part barring judicial inquiry struck down; 29th Amendment valid, with the Kerala Acts sent back to a Constitution Bench; Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure — Six conclusions, one of them new to Indian law.

Question	Answer on 24 April 1973	What it meant
Was Golak Nath right?	No, overruled	Amendments are not “law” under Article 13; Fundamental Rights can be amended
24th Amendment	Valid	Article 368 is the source of the amending power
25th, Article 31(2)	Valid	“Amount” instead of “compensation” for acquired property
25th, Article 31C first part	Valid	Laws for Article 39(b) and (c) protected from Articles 14, 19 and 31
25th, Article 31C second part	Invalid	A legislature’s own declaration cannot shut out the courts
29th Amendment	Valid	Kerala Acts stayed in the Ninth Schedule; the cases went back to a Constitution Bench
Limit on Article 368	Basic structure	Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework

Often claimed

The court made Fundamental Rights unamendable.
It struck down Kerala’s land reforms.
It issued a list of basic features.
Waman Rao was decided in 1981; Sajjan Singh in 1965.

What the record shows

It held the opposite: they can be amended, short of destroying the basic structure.
The 29th Amendment protecting them was upheld.
Judges named different features; later cases filled in more.
Waman Rao was delivered on 13 November 1980; Sajjan Singh on 30 October 1964.

What Counts as the Basic Structure?

No closed checklist. Features recognised in 1973 and in later cases.

Features recognised as part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and where they come from: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic government, secular and federal character, separation of powers and unity of the nation named in 1973 opinions; free and fair elections and rule of law in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975; limited amending power, judicial review and harmony of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in Minerva Mills, 1980; independence of the judiciary in the NJAC case, 2015 — A list that the courts have built case by case.

Chief Justice Sikri’s opinion gave the most-quoted examples: the supremacy of the Constitution, the republican and democratic form of government, its secular and federal character, and the separation of powers. Justices Shelat and Grover added the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation; Justices Hegde and Mukherjea named sovereignty and the welfare state. None of the judges claimed to be exhaustive. Later benches added free and fair elections, judicial review, limited amending power and judicial independence, each in a dispute about a particular amendment.

Parliament and the Court: Five Rounds

Each ruling drew an amendment; each amendment drew a ruling.

The exchange between Parliament and the Supreme Court over the amending power: Shankari Prasad 1951 and Sajjan Singh 1964 uphold wide power; Golak Nath 1967 bars amending Fundamental Rights; the 24th Amendment 1971 restores the power; Kesavananda Bharati 1973 allows amendment but protects the basic structure; the 42nd Amendment 1976 declares the power unlimited; Minerva Mills 1980 strikes that down — Twenty-nine years from Shankari Prasad to Minerva Mills.

Constitutional amendments struck down using the basic structure doctrine: Article 329A(4) of the 39th Amendment in 1975 for violating free and fair elections; Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment in 1980 for removing limits on amending power and judicial review; the 99th Amendment and NJAC in 2015 for damaging judicial independence — The doctrine in use.

The Ninth Schedule and the 24 April 1973 Line

How the date of the judgment became a rule of law.

How the Kesavananda Bharati judgment date divides Ninth Schedule laws: laws added before 24 April 1973 keep the full protection of Article 31B, as held in Waman Rao on 13 November 1980; laws added on or after that date can be challenged if they damage the basic structure, as confirmed by a nine-judge bench in I.R. Coelho on 11 January 2007 — One date, two regimes.

The First Amendment of 1951 created the Ninth Schedule so that land-reform laws placed in it could not be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights. By the 1970s hundreds of laws had been added. Kesavananda raised the obvious question: if an amendment cannot destroy the basic structure, can an amendment that inserts a law into the Ninth Schedule be tested too? Waman Rao said yes for additions made on or after 24 April 1973, and spared earlier ones because titles and transactions had been settled on the faith that they were safe. I.R. Coelho, decided by nine judges in 2007, confirmed that later additions get no blanket immunity: a court can examine whether the law’s effect on Fundamental Rights damages the basic structure.

Why the Case Still Matters, and Why It Is Contested

For the doctrine

A safeguard

Stops a temporary majority from dismantling democracy.
Tested in the Emergency, 1975–77.
Leaves Parliament wide power to amend.

Against it

A judicial veto

Not written in Article 368.
Unelected judges define “basic”.
Open-ended list of features.

In practice

Used sparingly

Few amendments struck down.
Applied to parts, not whole Acts.
Most amendments since 1973 stand.

Six lasting effects

Amending power: Parliament keeps the power to change any article, but every amendment can be tested against the basic structure.
Elections: the doctrine stopped a law placing the Prime Minister’s election beyond any court in 1975.
Judicial review: Minerva Mills held that review of amendments cannot be abolished by amendment.
Judicial independence: the NJAC was struck down in 2015 on this ground.
Ninth Schedule: laws added after 24 April 1973 lost their automatic immunity.
Influence abroad: the idea of unamendable constitutional features has been taken up by courts in Bangladesh and elsewhere in South Asia.

Explore More Timelines

PoliticsShah Commission Report: What It Revealed About India’s…What's really at stake here?PoliticsPrakash Singh Police Reforms: The Seven Directives and 20…What's really at stake here?PoliticsWaqf Act Challenge: Governing Religious Endowments in…What's really at stake here?PoliticsMadhumita Shukla Murder: Timeline of a Political CrimeWhat's really at stake here?PoliticsIndira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: The Case That Changed IndiaWhat's really at stake here?

Frequently Asked Questions

Dated facts from the Supreme Court judgments, 1951 to 2015.

What is the Kesavananda Bharati case?

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, decided by a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 24 April 1973. By 7-6 it held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.

Who was Kesavananda Bharati?

The head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kasaragod, Kerala, from 1961 until his death on 6 September 2020. He filed the petition to challenge Kerala's land-reform laws.

When was the petition filed?

On 21 March 1970, as Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 under Article 32. It was later amended to challenge the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments.

What did the petition originally challenge?

The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969. The petitioner relied on Articles 25 and 26 on religious freedom and Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31.

What is the basic structure doctrine?

The principle that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, though wide, does not extend to damaging or destroying the Constitution's basic structure or framework. Courts can strike down amendments that do.

How many judges heard the case?

Thirteen, the largest bench ever assembled by the Supreme Court of India. It was formed so the court could reconsider the 11-judge decision in Golak Nath.

Who were the judges in the majority?

Chief Justice S.M. Sikri and Justices J.M. Shelat, A.N. Grover, K.S. Hegde, A.K. Mukherjea, P. Jaganmohan Reddy and H.R. Khanna.

Who were the dissenting judges?

Justices A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi and Y.V. Chandrachud. They held that the amending power had no implied limits.

How many opinions were written?

Eleven separate opinions, running to hundreds of pages. Nine judges signed a short summary of the view by majority, which is how the holding is usually stated.

Who argued the case?

Nani Palkhivala led for the petitioners. Attorney General Niren De appeared for the Union, and H.M. Seervai for the State of Kerala.

How long were the hearings?

The arguments ran from October 1972 to March 1973, one of the longest hearings in the court's history, and judgment was delivered on 24 April 1973.

What did the court decide about the 24th Amendment?

It upheld it. The 24th Amendment, which received assent on 5 November 1971, confirmed Parliament's power to amend any provision and made presidential assent to amendment bills mandatory.

What did the court decide about the 25th Amendment?

It upheld the change from compensation to amount in Article 31(2) and the first part of Article 31C. It struck down the second part, which barred courts from examining whether a law actually gave effect to Article 39(b) and (c).

What did the court decide about the 29th Amendment?

It upheld the 29th Amendment of 9 June 1972, which placed two Kerala land-reform amendment Acts of 1969 and 1971 in the Ninth Schedule.

What was the Golak Nath case?

I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, decided on 27 February 1967 by 6-5. It held that a constitutional amendment is law under Article 13, so Fundamental Rights could not be abridged. Kesavananda Bharati overruled it.

What did Shankari Prasad decide?

On 5 October 1951 a unanimous five-judge bench upheld the First Amendment and held that an amendment under Article 368 is not law under Article 13, so it can abridge Fundamental Rights.

When was Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided?

On 30 October 1964, though it is often dated 1965 from its law report. It upheld the 17th Amendment, while Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar raised doubts about unlimited amending power.

What happened after the judgment?

Chief Justice Sikri retired, and the government appointed Justice A.N. Ray, from the minority, as Chief Justice over three senior majority judges, Shelat, Hegde and Grover, who resigned.

Was the judgment ever reviewed?

Chief Justice A.N. Ray convened a 13-judge bench in November 1975 to reconsider it without any review petition on file. After two days of hearings it was dissolved on 12 November 1975.

What was the first use of the basic structure doctrine?

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain on 7 November 1975, when the court struck down Article 329A(4), added by the 39th Amendment, which had put the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial challenge.

How did the 42nd Amendment respond?

Enacted on 18 December 1976, it added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, saying no amendment could be questioned in any court and that the amending power had no limits.

What did Minerva Mills decide?

On 31 July 1980, giving reasons for its order of 9 May, the court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment. It held that limited amending power and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are basic features.

What did Waman Rao decide?

On 13 November 1980 the court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 keep full protection, while later additions can be challenged if they damage the basic structure.

What did I.R. Coelho decide?

On 11 January 2007 a nine-judge bench held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 can be tested against Fundamental Rights and struck down if they damage the basic structure.

Why was the NJAC struck down?

On 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court held 4-1 that the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act damaged the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature, by giving the executive a decisive role in judicial appointments.

What is Article 368?

The article of the Constitution that sets out Parliament's power and procedure to amend the Constitution, including special majorities and, for some provisions, ratification by half the states.

What is the Ninth Schedule?

A list of laws created by the First Amendment in 1951. Article 31B protects laws in it from challenge for violating Fundamental Rights, subject since Kesavananda to basic-structure review for later additions.

What is Article 31C?

A provision added by the 25th Amendment that protects laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19. Article 31, the right to property, was removed from the Constitution in 1978.

Why is the 24 April 1973 date important?

It is the date of the Kesavananda judgment. Waman Rao and I.R. Coelho used it as the cut-off: Ninth Schedule laws added before it keep full protection, and later ones are open to basic-structure review.

Why is the doctrine criticised?

Critics argue it lets unelected judges veto amendments passed by Parliament and ratified by states, using a test the Constitution's text does not state. Supporters say it stops a temporary majority from dismantling constitutional democracy.

⚠️ Editorial Note

This account is based on the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 April 1973 in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and on the judgments in Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1964), Golak Nath (1967), Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), Waman Rao (1980) and I.R. Coelho (2007), read on Indian Kanoon, with reporting by LiveLaw, SCC Online, Deccan Herald and Onmanorama for the 1975 review bench, the 2023 anniversary page and the petitioner’s death. Checking the brief this page started from against those records: Sajjan Singh was decided on 30 October 1964, not in 1965, and Waman Rao on 13 November 1980, not in 1981; both later years come from law-report citations. Minerva Mills’ reasons of 31 July 1980 followed an order of 9 May 1980. The petition date, the six connected writ petitions, the 24th Amendment’s assent on 5 November 1971 and the vote counts are taken from the 1973 judgment. Basic features are reported as individual judges stated them, not as a list issued by the court. This is not legal advice.

Sources & further reading

Every dated entry above was checked against these references. Last reviewed 6 November 2026.