## Facts

- The head of a Hindu religious institution in Kerala filed an action challenging provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as amended, alleging violations of constitutional rights including equality, property, and religious freedom.
- The case was brought directly in the Supreme Court under the Constitution’s writ jurisdiction.
- While the case was pending, Parliament enacted constitutional amendments expanding the amending power and limiting certain constitutional challenges, including amendments affecting property rights and judicial review, and placing certain Kerala land reform laws into a schedule intended to shield them from review.
- The petitioner amended the pleadings to challenge the validity of those constitutional amendments, turning the dispute into a comprehensive test of the scope of Parliament’s constitutional amending power.
- A 13-judge bench was convened to reconsider prior precedent on whether and how Parliament may amend fundamental rights and other constitutional provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution extends to all provisions, including fundamental rights.
2. Whether there are implied substantive limits on the amending power—specifically, whether Parliament may alter or destroy the Constitution’s “basic structure.”
3. Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th constitutional amendments were valid, including provisions limiting judicial review and immunizing certain legislation from challenge.
4. Whether the Preamble is part of the Constitution and, if so, whether it may be amended.

## Decision

- By a 7–6 majority, the Court held Parliament’s amending power is broad and may reach fundamental rights, but it does not permit amendments that destroy or abrogate the Constitution’s basic structure.
- The 24th Amendment was upheld as valid, subject to the limitation that amendments remain reviewable for basic-structure violations.
- The 25th Amendment was upheld in part and invalidated in part: provisions giving priority to certain directive policy objectives over specified rights were largely sustained, but the clause barring judicial review of whether a law truly implemented those objectives was struck down.
- The 29th Amendment was upheld, while recognizing that measures placed in the protected schedule could still be tested if they damaged the basic structure.
- The Court held the Preamble is part of the Constitution and informs what counts as basic structure; it may be amended only within the basic-structure limit.
- The land reform measures challenged were largely sustained, and the petitioner did not obtain full relief against the legislation.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review for compatibility with the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Parliament may amend any constitutional provision, including fundamental rights, but cannot amend in a manner that alters the Constitution’s identity by destroying essential features.
- Judicial review is a basic feature that cannot be removed by constitutional amendment.
- Constitutional supremacy, democratic and republican government, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, rule of law, and the balance between rights and directive policy goals are among features treated as candidates for “basic structure,” assessed case-by-case.
- The Preamble is part of the Constitution and is a key source for identifying foundational constitutional commitments relevant to basic structure.

## Conclusion

The Court established that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is extensive but limited: amendments may change even fundamental rights, yet remain invalid if they damage the Constitution’s basic structure, with judicial review retained to enforce that limit.


Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461 (India 1973)