KESAVANANDA BHARTI SIRPASDAGALVARU 

Vs. 

STATE OF KERALA 

AIR 1973 S.C 1461 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Reference: It was a case in Supreme court where K.Bharti is appellant  and

 and The State of Kerala
is Defendant. 

Summary:  The 13 members Special Bench of the SC , the main question that come up for
consideration is :

•  The scope of the provision of Article 368 relating to the amendment of the fundamental
Rights contained in part III of the constitution.
th th
•  The validity of the 24  & 25  Amendment Act (1971) of the constitution.
•  The court also had to decide whether its earlier decision in the Golak Nath’s Case (AIR
1967 SC 1643) was correctly decided or not.

Fact of the Case: There are SIX Writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution
challenging the common question :

•  The validity of 24th , 25th & 29th Amendment Act of the constitution.

•  Writ petition No 135 of 1970 pertains to petitioner K Bharati who has filed the petition
for the enforcement of his Fundamental right under Article 25,26,14.19(1)(f) and 31 
of the Constitution.

•  He prayed that the provision of the Kerela land Reform Act 1963,(for Short the Act) as
amended by Kerela Land Reform (Amendment) Act 1969 be declared unconstitutional ,
ultra vires & void.

•  He further prayed for an appropriate writ or order to issue during the pendency of the
petition.

•  During the Pendency of the writ petition the Kerela Reforms Act 1971 was passed which
received the assent of the President on 7th  Aug 1971.The petitioner K Bharti field an
application for permission to urge(advise) additional grounds and to impugn(point the
figure at ) the constitutional validity of the said Act 1971 Act.
 

•  In the meantime time SC by its judgment in April 1971 in Kunjukutty Vs State of Kerela
(AIR 1972 SC 2097) upheld (maintain/sustain/support) the majority judgment of the
kerela High Court in Narayan Nair Vs State of Kerela (AIR 1971 Ker 98 F.B)Where by
certain section of the Act were stuck down.

th th
•  After the Constitution 29  Amendment came into force in 9  june 1972 ,the The Kerela
Land Reform (Amendment) Act 1969 & The Kerela Land Reform (Amendment) Act
1971 is inserted in the 9th Schedule of the constitution.

•  The petitioner K Baharti then moved an application for urging additional grounds and for
amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the above constitutional
amendments.

•  The Court allowed both the prayer on August 19,1972 and issued notice before the
Advocate General to appear before the court and take such part in the proceedings as they
may be advised. 

Points for Decision : 

1.   Is the provision of the Art 368 of the Constitution wide enough to amend all the
 provisions of the constitution including the fundamental rights in Part III of the
Constitution? 

Decision: It is not unlimited so far as the basic Structure concern of the constitution
is concerned.

2.   Are the 24th ,25th and 29th Amendment of the constitution valid? 

Decision: (i) The 24th and 29th ,1971 Amendments are valid.

th
(ii) Section 2 (a) and 2(b) of the 25   Amendment 1971 is Valid & first
part of Section 3 is valid & 2 nd Part is invalid of the 25th Amendment Act
1971.

3.  Was the Golak Nath’s Case correctly decided by the Court?  

Decision: No, accordingly it is overruled. (rule against).

Judgments and reason for the decision: 

The constitutional validity of these amendments was challenged before a full bench of the Supreme
Court (thirteen judges). Their verdict can be found in eleven separate judgments.  Nine judges signed a
summary statement which records the most important conclusions reached by them in this case.  

  The seminalin (important

recognition the majority/ verdict.
decisive)Allconcept of 'basic
judges uphold structure' of the
(support/maintain) theConstitution gained
validity of the th
24  
 

 amendment saying that Parliament had the power to amend any or all provisions of the
Constitution 

•  All signatories to the summary held that the Golaknath case had been decided wrongly and that
case had
Article 368 contained both the power and the procedure for amending the Constitution. However
they were clear that an amendment to the Constitution was not the same as a law as understood
by Article 13 (2).

•  The constitution (29th  Amendment) which incorporated The Kerala Land Reform Act in the 9 th 
Schedule is valid. 

•  The learned Attorney-General said that every provision of the Constitution is essential;
otherwise it would not have been put in the Constitution. This is true. But this does not place
every provision of the Constitution in the same position. The true position is that every provision
of the Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of
the constitution remains the same.

The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features :

•  Supremacy of the Constitution;

•  Republican and Democratic form of Government; 

•  Secular character of the Constitution; 

•  Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary;

•  Federal character of the Constitution. 293. The above structure is built on the basic
foundation, i.e., the dignity and freedom of the individual. This is of supreme
importance. This cannot by any form of amendment be destroyed. " 

Recently, the Kesavananda Bharati judgement is likely to be the key to interpreting

and challenging any new legislation or constitutional amendment, imposing
imposing the State's
reservation quotas on private unaided colleges, to determine if it violates the basic

structure of the constitution or not.