The Kesavananda Bharati Vs State Of Kerala Case: A Case Which Fought And Protected The Essence Of The Constitution Shajeeda Tajdeen LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Dec 07, 2020, at ,09:02 PM Brief History: The Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case, which was passed by the Apex Court 47 years ago, is still afresh and it is still viewed to be one of the most remarkable constitutional cases in the Judicial history of our country. A 13 Judges Constitution Bench, by a majority of 7:6, upheld that the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution is absolute and untouchable and the outside the purview of the amendment powers of the Constitution. Since then the doctrine of basic structure has been considered as the rule of Constitutional law in India. Introduction: The constitution of any country is believed to be its Grund norm and it lays down the fundamental laws of the land. Similarly, in our country Constitution is believed to be the first source of law and anything that contradicts or go against the Constitution stands void. Likewise, there are some Constitutions around the world that are kept immune from amendments and are also given special stature as compared to the other provisions. The Indian Constitution from the time it has been adopted is surrounded by debates and arguments as to what extent can the Legislature amend the key provisions of the Constitution. In the initial years of Independence, the Apex Court had upheld that the Parliament enjoys absolute power to amend key provisions of the Constitution, and the same was put into practicality in the Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case, in the year 1951 and 1965 respectively. The reasons for giving such a decision was based on the belief that in those years the Supreme Court had placed its faith in the intelligence and insight of the then political leaders, because in that era that Legislature was served by the leading freedom fighters who had kept the interest of the country before anything else and they worked for maintaining the dignity of the nation. Following the judgements mentioned above the Constitution was being amended time and again to meet the interest of the ruling system, the Apex Court then declared in the I C Golaknath v State of Punjab case that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but it cannot touch the Fundamental rights bestowed in Part III of the Constitution, and that this power will only vest with Constituent Assembly. The brawl between the Legislature and the Judicial system: Some of the major amendments to the Constitution i.e. (the 24th, the 25th, the 26th, and the 29th) were made in the early 1970s, by Mrs Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of the Country. The said amendments were brought about to overrule the judgements of the Apex Court in the RC Cooper v Union of India, I C Golaknath v State of Punjab and Madhavrao Scindia v Union of India case respectively. The Supreme Court had nullified the then Prime Minister’s bank nationalisation policy in the RC Cooper case and subsequently in the Madhavrao Scindia’s the Apex Court had revoked the concept of the abolition of privy purses for former rulers. All the above-mentioned judgements were questioned in the Kesvananda Bharati case- wherein Swami Kesvananda Bharati had sought relief against the Kerala Government in two-state land reforms. The prior case of IC Golaknath was decided by a 11 judges bench, a larger bench was required to test and review its correctness and accuracy and thus a 13 judges bench was set up in the Kesvananda Bharati case. The case against the government was presented by noted legal dignitaries such as Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee. The Judgement: The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court after much deliberation came up with a verdict of 7:6 that the Parliament should prohibit from amending the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The court declared that under Article 368, which provides Parliament amending powers, something must remain of the original Constitution that the new amendment would change. However, in the judgement, the court did not give any specific definition to the term ‘basic structure’ but only enumerated a few principles such as democracy, federalism, secularism- as being its part. Since the Judiciary has been widening the concept of ‘basic structure’ based on the principles described. It was posted this case that the ‘doctrine of basic structure’ came to life and has been interpreted to embrace the dominance of the Grund norm, the rule of law, independence of the Court system, secularism, democracy, sovereignty, federalism, the parliamentary system of government etc. The doctrine laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case was put into application in the year 1994 in the case of SR Bommai v Union of India case where the Apex court upheld the dismissal of the BJP government by the then President following the demolition of Babri Masjid, invoking a threat to secularism by these governments. Conclusion: The Judgement has no doubt protected the Constitution and its nature from being misused by the different ruling parties. Along with this, it has also protected the stability of the Grund norm against arbitrariness and authoritarian.