Everyday Globe
Subscribe

What Is the Basic Structure Doctrine?

In 1973, thirteen judges of India's Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its essential features. Here is how the Kesavananda Bharati case created that rule, and why it still decides India's biggest constitutional fights.

By Kirti Kaliraman· 8 min read
The circular colonnaded Old Parliament House (Sansad Bhavan) in New Delhi seen across green lawns
The Old Parliament House (Sansad Bhavan), New Delhi, where the amendments tested in Kesavananda Bharati were passed. Photo: Nikhilb239 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The basic structure doctrine is the rule that India's Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution but cannot alter or destroy its essential features, such as democracy, the rule of law, federalism, secularism and judicial review. The Supreme Court of India laid it down on 24 April 1973 in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, and it remains the reason courts can strike down even a constitutional amendment passed with a full special majority.

Most constitutions can be changed. India's has been amended more than a hundred times since 1950, far more often than the United States Constitution in over two centuries. What makes India unusual is not how often its Constitution changes but the line its Supreme Court drew around those changes: an amendment may reshape the house, but it may not knock down the foundations. That idea, stated in a single sentence of a judgement more than 700 pages long, is the most important limit on political power in the world's largest democracy.

The question that started it

The Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend it under Article 368, with a special majority and, for some provisions, ratification by half the states. In the early years the Supreme Court read that power broadly. In Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964) it upheld amendments that curtailed the fundamental right to property so that land reform laws could survive.

Then, on 27 February 1967, an eleven-judge bench reversed course. In Golaknath v. State of Punjab, a 6–5 majority held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights in Part III at all. A constitutional amendment, it said, was "law" under Article 13, and Article 13 forbids any law that takes away or abridges those rights.

Parliament pushed back hard. Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi it passed a series of amendments in 1971:

  • The 24th Amendment declared that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, and that Article 13 did not apply to amendments.
  • The 25th Amendment curtailed the right to compensation for acquired property and inserted Article 31C, which protected laws implementing certain Directive Principles from challenge, including a clause barring courts from questioning whether such a law actually served those principles.
  • The 29th Amendment placed two Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from fundamental rights challenges.

The stage was set for a direct collision between Parliament and the Court.

A monastery in Kerala

The case that settled it began far from Delhi. Swami Kesavananda Bharati was the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastery in Kasaragod district in northern Kerala. In 1970 he filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 135 of 1970, challenging the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1969 and 1971, which restricted how the mutt could manage its land.

The ornate red and cream facade of the Edneer Mutt monastery building in Kasaragod, Kerala, under a blue sky
The Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala. Its head, Swami Kesavananda Bharati, lent his name to India's most cited constitutional case. Photo: Shamirpetwala / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

While his petition was pending, the 1971 amendments were passed, and the case grew into a test of all of them. Because Golaknath had been decided by eleven judges, only a larger bench could overrule it. The Court assembled thirteen judges, the largest bench in its history, then and since. Arguments ran for 68 working days, from 31 October 1972 to 23 March 1973. The jurist Nani Palkhivala, assisted by Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee, led the challenge; Attorney General Niren De and H.M. Seervai led the defence of the amendments.

What the Court decided

On 24 April 1973 the judges delivered eleven separate opinions. Their reasoning differed widely, but nine of them signed a short summary of the majority view. Its core holdings were:

  1. Golaknath was overruled. Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
  2. But Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. This is the doctrine itself.
  3. The 24th Amendment was valid, as was the 29th.
  4. Most of the 25th Amendment was valid, but the clause in Article 31C that barred courts from examining whether a law truly gave effect to the Directive Principles was struck down.

The vote on the central point was 7–6. The swing opinion belonged to Justice H.R. Khanna, who agreed that Parliament could amend fundamental rights but held that the word "amendment" could not include the power to abrogate the Constitution or destroy its identity. A power to amend, in short, is not a power to destroy.

The irony is well known among Indian lawyers: Kesavananda Bharati lost his own dispute, because the Kerala land laws were upheld. Yet the principle his case produced has protected every citizen since. He died on 6 September 2020, aged 79.

What counts as "basic structure"?

The Court deliberately did not write a closed list. Chief Justice S.M. Sikri named the supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic government, its secular character, the separation of powers and its federal character. Other judges added the unity and integrity of the nation, individual freedom and dignity, and the mandate to build a welfare state.

Later cases have filled in the picture. Features the Supreme Court has since treated as part of the basic structure include:

Feature Case where it was applied
Free and fair elections Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Limited amending power; balance between Parts III and IV Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Secularism and federalism S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Judicial review L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Review of Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Independence of the judiciary Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)

The open-ended approach is both the doctrine's strength and the main criticism of it. Supporters say no list drafted in 1973 could anticipate every threat to a constitution. Critics argue it lets unelected judges decide which parts of the text matter most.

The doctrine under fire

The doctrine was tested almost immediately. Two days after the judgement, Justice A.N. Ray, one of the six in the minority, was appointed Chief Justice of India, superseding three more senior judges who had all been in the majority. In November 1975, during the Emergency, Ray convened another thirteen-judge bench to reconsider Kesavananda. After two days of argument led again by Palkhivala, the bench was dissolved on 12 November without a ruling.

That same month, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court used the doctrine for the first time to strike down part of a constitutional amendment: the 39th Amendment's attempt to place the Prime Minister's election beyond judicial scrutiny. Parliament answered with the sweeping 42nd Amendment of 1976, which declared that no amendment could be "called in question in any court on any ground". In Minerva Mills (1980) the Court struck those provisions down too, holding that a limited amending power is itself part of the basic structure.

The most recent major use came in October 2015, when a five-judge bench struck down the 99th Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act by 4–1, holding that they compromised judicial independence. Reactions to that ruling, and periodic remarks by senior political figures questioning the doctrine, show that the debate between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional limits is still alive. The same reasoning about essential rights also shaped the Puttaswamy privacy judgement, which treated dignity and liberty as core values no ordinary law can override.

An Indian idea that travelled

The basic structure doctrine is one of India's most influential legal exports. The idea owed something to a 1965 lecture at Banaras Hindu University by the German scholar Dietrich Conrad, who drew on Germany's own constitutional experience. That 1949 constitution contains an explicit "eternity clause" in Article 79(3), forbidding any amendment that touches human dignity, democracy or the federal division of the country.

India turned that written rule into a judge-made principle, and others followed. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh adopted the doctrine in Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (1989), relying expressly on Kesavananda. Courts in Belize, Malaysia and Pakistan have engaged with it, with mixed results. In Kenya, the High Court and Court of Appeal applied it in 2021 to block the "Building Bridges Initiative" amendments, but on 31 March 2022 the Supreme Court of Kenya held by 6–1 that the doctrine does not apply there, while still finding the amendment process unconstitutional on other grounds.

The comparison with other young democracies is instructive. South Africa wrote its core values directly into its constitution, and its new Constitutional Court relied on them when it abolished the death penalty in 1995. India reached a similar destination by a different route: through judges reading limits into a constitution that did not spell them out.

Why it matters today

For an ordinary citizen, the basic structure doctrine means that no government, however large its majority, can amend away elections, courts or fundamental freedoms. It turns the Constitution from a document that the majority of the day can rewrite at will into one with a protected core. The Supreme Court marked the judgement's 50th anniversary, on 24 April 2023, by publishing the full arguments and all thirteen opinions on a dedicated website, along with the first public Hindi translation of the judgement, a sign of how central the case remains.

Fifty years on, Kesavananda Bharati is cited in almost every major constitutional challenge in India. Whether the subject is elections, federal finances or the appointment of judges, the first question a court now asks about any amendment is the one the thirteen judges asked in 1973: does it amend the Constitution, or does it destroy it?

Sources

#india#supreme court#constitutional law#kesavananda bharati#judicial review