•
•
•
•
•
•
•
From Kesavananda Bharati to the NJAC verdict, the idea that Parliament cannot rewrite the Constitution's core
The basic structure doctrine is a principle developed by the Supreme Court of India holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to destroying or altering its essential features. It is one of the most important contributions of Indian constitutional law and has influenced courts in other countries, including Bangladesh.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice.
Article 368 allows Parliament to amend the Constitution. Soon after independence, land reform laws and amendments restricting the right to property raised a fundamental question: is there any limit to what Parliament can amend?
| Case | Year | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan | 1965 | Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad |
| I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights |
| 24th Constitutional Amendment | 1971 | Asserted Parliament's power to amend any part |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Parliament can amend any part, but not the basic structure |
A 13-judge bench, the largest in the court's history, decided the case on April 24, 1973, by a 7–6 majority. The court:
The case began as a challenge by Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, to state land reform laws.
The court has never produced an exhaustive list. Features recognised in various judgments include:
Critics argue that the doctrine gives unelected judges power to override constitutional amendments passed by elected representatives, and that the undefined list creates uncertainty. Supporters argue that it is a necessary safeguard and has been used sparingly. The debate periodically resurfaces in public discourse, especially around judicial appointments and the balance between Parliament and the judiciary.
No. It is a judicial doctrine derived from interpreting Article 368 and the Constitution as a whole.
Only by a larger Supreme Court bench, which would require more than 13 judges. No such bench has overturned it.
Primarily it applies to constitutional amendments. Ordinary laws are tested against Fundamental Rights and other constitutional provisions.
He was the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala, whose challenge to land reform laws led to the landmark ruling. He died in 2020.
The basic structure doctrine allows India's Constitution to be amended while protecting its democratic core. More than five decades after Kesavananda Bharati, it remains central to how India balances parliamentary power with constitutional limits.
