The kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr
is popularly known as the Kesavananda Bharati case .
Judgement can be found here .
indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
This case arose in the early 70s when the leader of a Hindu mutt in Kerala HH Sri Kesavananda Bharati challenged the Kerala government’s attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.
He also challenged three Constitutional amendments — the 24th, 26th and 29th amendments — introduced by the Indira Gandhi government as he apprehended that he would not succeed in light of those amendments.
The Amendments which were challenged can be seen here
The question sought to be answered was whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution as per Article 368 is unlimited, or whether there are ‘implied limitations’, in the exercise of such a power.
To put it simply, can the Parliament amend every part of the Constitution as per the procedure provided, or are certain parts of the Constitution, that supposedly form its core, more sacred than the rest of the provisions and hence cannot be altered under any circumstances?
The judgment delivered on April 24, 1973 by 13 judges delivered 11 different judgments in what is said to be a 7:6 majority.
Chief Justice SM Sikri held that Parliament can amend every Article in the Constitution, but this power of amendment is not absolute in as much as it does not enable Parliament to abrogate or take away fundamental rights
or to completely change the fundamental features of the Constitution so as to
destroy its identity. These fundamental features of the Constitution are what he called its “Basic Structure “ .
2 other Judges mentioned that the Parliament cannot emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution. What these basic features are, is unclear.
6 other judges explicitly held that there are no inherent or implied limitations on the power of the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution.
In the absence of any certainty as to what the “basic structure” consists of and only vague parameters to deduce the same, it is left to the wisdom of the SC judges to decide upon it on a case to case basis.
The aim of the judiciary behind propounding this doctrine was understandably to save democracy from the hands of a tyrannical few and pre-empt a dictatorial onslaught on fundamental rights