Parliament's power to amend the Constitution—especially the part that deals with citizens' fundamental

rights—faced its first major challenge in 1951. After gaining independence, several state governments
passed laws to reform land ownership and tenancy systems. These reforms were in line with the Congress
party’s promise to implement the Constitution’s socialistic goals. Specifically, Article 39(b) and (c) of the
Directive Principles of State Policy call for the fair distribution of resources and the reduction of wealth
concentration.

However, many landowners who were negatively affected by these reforms took the matter to court. The
judiciary often struck down such laws, arguing that they violated the fundamental right to property
guaranteed by the Constitution.

In response to these judicial decisions, Parliament acted quickly. Through the First and Fourth
Constitutional Amendments in 1951 and 1952, it placed the controversial land reform laws into the Ninth
Schedule of the Constitution. This move was aimed at shielding these laws from judicial review.

The Ninth Schedule, introduced by the First Amendment in 1951, serves to protect certain laws—especially
those involving land acquisition and compensation—from being challenged in court, even if they seem to
violate fundamental rights. This legal shield was created under Article 31 (which was later amended several
times) and now covers over 250 laws, mainly focused on regulating land ownership and ending outdated
tenancy systems.

The primary goal of this legal measure was to ensure that the judiciary could not block Parliament’s efforts
to implement wide-ranging social and economic reforms, especially those that aligned with the
Constitution's vision of justice and equality.

Property owners again challenged the constitutional amendments which placed land reforms laws in the
Ninth Schedule before the Supreme Court, saying that they violated Article 13 (2) of the Constitution.

Article 13 (2) provides for the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen. Parliament and the state
legislatures are clearly prohibited from making laws that may take away or abridge the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizen. They argued that any amendment to the Constitution had the status of a law as
understood by Article 13 (2). In 1952 (Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India) and 1955 (Sajjan Singh v.
Rajasthan], the Supreme Court rejected both arguments and upheld the power of Parliament to amend any
part of the Constitution including that which affects the fundamental rights of citizens. Significantly though,
two dissenting judges in Sajjan Singh v. Rajasthan case raised doubts whether the fundamental rights of
citizens could become a plaything of the majority party in Parliament.

Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845.

2. The golakhnath case

In 1967, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Golaknath v. State of
Punjab. An eleven-judge bench of the Court gave a 6:5 majority decision, led by Chief Justice Subba Rao.
This case changed the way people understood Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Before this case, it was widely believed that Article 368 gave Parliament the power to make changes
(amendments) to the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that Article 368 only describes the procedure
for making amendments—it does not give Parliament the actual power to do so. Instead, the Court said
that the power to make laws, including constitutional changes, came from other articles (Articles 245, 246,
and 248), which deal with ordinary law-making powers.

Because of this reasoning, the Court concluded that a constitutional amendment should be treated like any
other law. And under Article 13(2) of the Constitution, laws that violate fundamental rights are invalid.
Therefore, the Court said Parliament could not amend the Constitution in ways that would reduce or
harm fundamental rights.

The judges argued that fundamental rights—like the right to freedom, equality, and protection of life—are
permanent and deeply important. These rights were considered so essential that even if every member of
Parliament agreed, they still could not take them away. If Parliament ever needed to change these rights,
the Court said, a new Constituent Assembly would have to be formed by the people themselves, not just
by Parliament.

This decision introduced the idea that some parts of the Constitution are so important that they lie at its
core and cannot be changed easily. During the case, lawyers for the petitioners (like M.K. Nambiar) first
mentioned the idea of a "basic structure" of the Constitution. However, this concept was not yet part of the
Court’s official reasoning until it was fully recognized in 1973 in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

3.Nationalisation of Banks and Abolition of Privy Purses: A Turning Point in Constitutional Politics

After the Golaknath verdict in 1967, where the Supreme Court limited Parliament's power to amend
fundamental rights, the Congress party suffered significant losses in elections and lost control in several
states. In response, a bill was introduced in Parliament to restore Parliament’s full power to amend the
Constitution, but due to political issues, it wasn’t passed.

However, the conflict between Parliament and the judiciary intensified when the government brought in
new laws to push forward its socialist policies. These included:

1. Nationalisation of banks to ensure more loans for farmers and fair access to credit.

2. Abolition of Privy Purses, which were payments promised to former royal families in return for
merging their kingdoms into the Indian Union after independence.

Parliament justified these steps by citing the Directive Principles of State Policy, which aim for social and
economic equality. But the Supreme Court struck down both laws, arguing that they violated fundamental
rights—especially the right to property, which was still protected under the Constitution at the time.

A Clash of Constitutional Principles

This led to a major ideological and legal clash:

 On one side was Parliament, trying to implement policies to benefit the poor.

 On the other side was the Supreme Court, trying to protect citizens' fundamental rights, including
the right to property.

 Behind this was also a class conflict: the wealthy few versus the poor majority, for whom the
government claimed it was working.

To regain support and strengthen her position, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi quickly dissolved Parliament
and called for new elections in 1971. This time, for the first time in Indian history, the Constitution itself
became the main election issue.
The Congress party campaigned on a promise to change the Constitution and restore the supremacy of
Parliament over the courts. They won with a two-thirds majority, giving them the power to amend the
Constitution.

Wave of Constitutional Changes (1971–1972)

Between July 1971 and June 1972, Parliament made several important constitutional changes:

 Restored full power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

 Made it mandatory for the President to approve any constitutional amendment passed by
Parliament.

 Passed laws to limit the right to property, reducing its status.

 Amended the Constitution to make Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19 (freedoms)
subordinate to Article 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles, which focus on fair distribution of
wealth and preventing concentration of power.

 Privy purses were officially abolished.

 Many land reform laws were added to the Ninth Schedule, making them immune to court
challenges.

These changes marked a major shift in the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary, and
between fundamental rights and Directive Principles. Parliament tried to ensure that social justice goals
could not be blocked by courts protecting property rights.

4. The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine

After Parliament made several constitutional amendments to reassert its power—including changes that
affected fundamental rights—these actions were challenged in the Supreme Court. The case that tested
these amendments was Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. It was heard by the largest-ever bench of
13 judges in Indian judicial history.

The judges gave 11 separate opinions, making the judgment complex. However, 9 judges signed a
summary, which highlighted their main conclusions. While scholars like Granville Austin have noted
differences between the summary and the full judgments, the case introduced one of the most important
principles in Indian constitutional law: the Basic Structure Doctrine.

⚖️What Did the Court Say?

 All the judges agreed that the 24th Amendment (1971)—which restored Parliament’s power to
amend the Constitution—was valid.

 They also agreed that Article 368 gives Parliament both the power and the procedure to amend
the Constitution.

 However, they made a key distinction: Amending the Constitution is not the same as making a
regular law under Article 13(2), which says that laws violating fundamental rights are void.
  This is because Parliament uses a different kind of power when amending the Constitution—called
constituent power, which is higher and more serious than its ordinary legislative power.

🧱 Understanding Constituent Power vs. Legislative Power

 Parliament can make laws for the country using powers under Articles 245, 246, and 248—this is
called legislative power.

 But to change the Constitution, Parliament must use its constituent power, which is outlined in
Article 368. This requires a special majority and sometimes even approval by half the states.

 Example:

o Parliament can pass a law to punish crimes under regular powers.

o But to change the right to life (Article 21) or remove the death penalty, it would need to
amend the Constitution—this uses constituent power.

🧩 The Basic Structure Doctrine: What It Means

Most importantly, 7 out of 13 judges, including Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, declared that there are limits to
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

They said that Parliament cannot "damage or destroy" the basic structure of the Constitution. This means
that while Parliament can change many things, it cannot alter the core principles or the foundation of the
Constitution.

They used strong words like:

 "destroy"

 "abrogate"

 "emasculate"

 "alter the basic structure"

These words made it clear: some parts of the Constitution are so important that they must always remain
intact, no matter what.

Why This Case Matters

The Kesavananda Bharati case became a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It ensured that:

 Parliament has wide powers, but not unlimited powers.

 The core values of the Constitution—like democracy, secularism, equality, and the rule of law—
cannot be taken away, even by a constitutional amendment.

 This judgment created a balance between Parliament's will and judicial oversight, ensuring the
Constitution’s core identity is preserved for future generations.
5. Basic Features of the Constitution according to the Kesavanada verdict

Each judge laid out separately, what he thought were the basic or essential features of the

Constitution. There was no unanimity of opinion within the majority view either.

Sikri, C.J. explained that the concept of basic structure included:

• supremacy of the Constitution

• republican and democratic form of government

• secular character of the Constitution

• separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary

• federal character of the Constitution

Shelat, J. and Grover, J. added two more basic features to this list:

• the mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy

• unity and integrity of the nation

Hegde, J. and Mukherjea, J. identified a separate and shorter list of basic features:

• sovereignty of India

• democratic character of the polity

• unity of the country

• essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens

• mandate to build a welfare state

Jaganmohan Reddy, J. stated that elements of the basic features were to be found in the Preamble

of the Constitution and the provisions into which they translated such as:

• sovereign democratic republic

However certain constitutional amendments must be ratified by at least half of the State legislatures before
they can come

into force. Matters such as the election of the President of the republic, the executive and legislative
powers of the Union and

the States, the High Courts in the States and Union Territories, representation of States in Parliament and
the Constitution

amending provisions themselves, contained in Article 368, must be amended by following this procedure.

• parliamentary democracy

• three organs of the State

He said that the Constitution would not be itself without the fundamental freedoms and the
directive principles.

Only six judges on the bench (therefore a minority view) agreed that the fundamental rights of

the citizen belonged to the basic structure and Parliament could not amend it.

The minority view The minority view delivered by Justice A.N. Ray (whose appointment to the
position of Chief Justice over and above the heads of three senior judges, soon after the pronunciation of
the Kesavananda verdict, was widely considered to be politically motivated), Justice M.H. Beg, Justice K.K.
Mathew and Justice S.N. Dwivedi also agreed that Golaknath had been decided wrongly. They upheld the
validity of all three amendments challenged before the court. Ray, J. held that all parts of the Constitution
were essential and no distinction could be made between its essential and non-essential parts. All of them
agreed that Parliament could make fundamental changes in the Constitution by exercising its power under
Article 368. In summary the majority verdict in Kesavananda Bharati recognised the power of Parliament to
amend any or all provisions of the Constitution provided such an act did not destroy its basic structure. But
there was no unanimity of opinion about what appoints to that basic structure. Though the Supreme Court
very nearly returned to the position of Sankari Prasad (1952) by restoring the supremacy of Parliament's
amending power, in effect it strengthened the power of judicial review much more

6. Reaffirming the Basic Structure: The Indira Gandhi Election Case

In 1975, the Supreme Court of India once again had to decide whether Parliament's power to amend the
Constitution had limits, especially when such changes affected the core values of democracy.

🔹 Background of the Case

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election victory was challenged in the Allahabad High Court on charges of
electoral malpractice. The court ruled against her, putting her position at risk. While she appealed to the
Supreme Court, Justice Krishna Iyer, acting as vacation judge, allowed her to stay in office—but only as a
caretaker: she could not draw a salary or speak or vote in Parliament.

To avoid a possible defeat in the Supreme Court, Parliament quickly passed the Thirty-ninth Amendment,
which removed the jurisdiction of the courts in disputes related to the election of the Prime Minister,
President, Vice President, and Speaker. These powers were transferred to a body that would be created by
Parliament itself.

This move was seen as an attempt to protect Indira Gandhi from being removed from office, especially
since it happened very quickly:

 Introduced and passed in the Lok Sabha on the same day (August 7, 1975)

 Cleared by the Rajya Sabha the next day

 Approved by the President and ratified by states in just a few days

 Published (gazetted) on August 10

When the Supreme Court reopened the case the next day, the government’s lawyers argued that the
Court could no longer hear the case due to the new amendment.

🧩 The Court’s Verdict and the Basic Structure Doctrine

 Four judges upheld most of the Thirty-ninth Amendment, but struck down the part that tried to
take away the judiciary’s power to review election cases.

 One judge, Justice M.H. Beg, upheld the amendment in full.

Although Indira Gandhi’s election was upheld based on new laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, the Court
made it clear that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited.

What Counts as Basic Structure?

Even though the judges had different views, they mostly agreed that some core principles of the
Constitution could never be changed, even by Parliament. Here’s what each judge believed:

Judge What They Said Is a Basic Feature

Justice H.R. Khanna Democracy includes free and fair elections.

Justice K.K. Thomas Judicial review (court’s power to check laws) is essential.

Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Listed four key features:

1. Sovereign democratic republic

2. Equality of status and opportunity

3. Secularism and religious freedom

4. Rule of law ("government of laws, not men") | | Chief Justice A.N. Ray | Said democracy is basic—
but oddly, not free and fair elections. Believed Parliament’s power is above the Constitution. | |
Justice K.K. Mathew | Agreed with Ray that ordinary laws are not part of the basic structure, but
election laws should still be decided by courts. | | Justice M.H. Beg | Strongly disagreed with Ray.
Said judicial powers belong to the courts, not Parliament. Declared separation of powers and
constitutional supremacy as basic features. Also said ordinary laws can be reviewed under the
basic structure doctrine. |

📌 Why This Case Matters

Even though the judges disagreed on the details, they all accepted the broader idea that the Constitution
has a "basic structure"—a core identity that cannot be altered, not even by Parliament using its special
amendment powers.

This case reaffirmed and expanded the Basic Structure Doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
and made it clear that no one—not even Parliament—can destroy the heart of the Constitution.

7. The Kesavananda Review Bench (1975): An Attempt to Reverse the Basic Structure Doctrine

Just three days after the Supreme Court's verdict in the Indira Gandhi Election Case, Chief Justice A.N. Ray
convened a 13-judge bench to reconsider the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The official
reason was to hear pending petitions related to land ceiling laws—laws that limit how much land a person
can own. These petitions argued that such laws violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
But in reality, this move seemed to be an indirect attempt to undo the Basic Structure Doctrine, which
limited Parliament’s power to change the core parts of the Constitution.

⚖️Key Points:

 No formal petition asking for a review of the Kesavananda case had been filed.

 Several judges on the bench were unhappy about reopening the case without proper legal grounds.

 Nani Palkhivala, a famous lawyer, strongly opposed the review attempt.

 After just two days of hearings, Chief Justice Ray disbanded the bench without giving a judgment.

 Many believe the move was influenced by government pressure to weaken judicial power and
remove limits on constitutional amendments.

⚠️Emergency and the Forty-Second Amendment: Changing the Rules

Soon after this failed attempt to review the Basic Structure Doctrine, India entered a National Emergency
in June 1975. During the Emergency:

 Fundamental rights were suspended

 Citizens could not challenge preventive detention or other government actions in court

During this time, the Congress government, led by Indira Gandhi, formed a committee headed by Sardar
Swaran Singh to revise the Constitution. Based on its recommendations, Parliament passed the Forty-
Second Amendment in 1976, which became effective on January 3, 1977.

📜 Key Changes in the Forty-Second Amendment (1976)

The amendment made sweeping changes to strengthen Parliament’s power and limit the judiciary:

🔹 a) Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights

 The amendment said that Directive Principles of State Policy (like goals for social justice and
economic equality) were more important than:

o Article 14 (Right to Equality)

o Article 19 (Freedoms like speech, assembly, and movement)

o Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)

 It expanded Article 31C, making it impossible to challenge laws made to implement Directive
Principles.

🔹 b) Amendments Could Not Be Challenged

 It stated that no constitutional amendment, whether past or future, could be challenged in court
on any grounds.

🔹 c) No Judicial Review of Amendments

 Courts were barred from reviewing any change to fundamental rights.

 Article 368 was modified to declare that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution had no
limits.

🧩 Why This Was So Important

These changes aimed to remove all checks on Parliament’s power and ensure that the judiciary could not
interfere, especially during the Emergency. The intent was clear: eliminate the Basic Structure Doctrine, or
at least weaken it severely.

However, these changes did not last long. In 1977, after the Emergency ended and a new government came
to power, many of these amendments were reversed—most importantly through the Forty-Fourth
Amendment in 1978, which restored judicial review and protected core fundamental rights.

8. 🧱 Basic Structure Doctrine Reaffirmed: The Minerva Mills & Waman Rao Cases

After the sweeping constitutional changes during the Emergency, including the powerful Forty-Second
Amendment (1976), the Supreme Court was once again asked to decide: Does Parliament have unlimited
power to amend the Constitution?

Two important cases helped reaffirm and strengthen the Basic Structure Doctrine:

⚖️Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Background:
The owners of Minerva Mills, a struggling industrial company in Bangalore that had been nationalised in
1974, challenged parts of the Forty-Second Amendment.

Rather than focusing only on property rights, their lawyer, the legendary Nani Palkhivala, focused on the
bigger question:

Did Parliament go too far in giving itself unlimited power to change the Constitution?

🔍 Key Arguments:

 Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment gave absolute power to Parliament to amend the Constitution
—even if it harmed the Constitution’s core structure.

 The amendment removed judicial review of constitutional amendments—meaning courts could no

 The new Article 31C allowed laws made to implement Directive Principles to override fundamental
rights, destroying the balance between the two.

Supreme Court’s Verdict (4:1 Majority)

Delivered by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, the Court held:

2. Limited Amending Power is Basic: Even when using Article 368, Parliament’s power to amend is not
unlimited. The Constitution must retain its core identity.

3. Amended Article 31C is Unconstitutional: Giving Directive Principles automatic priority over
Fundamental Rights damages the balance, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.

4. Even Justice Bhagwati, who dissented, agreed that no authority—even Parliament—can be the sole
judge of its own power.

📝 Impact:
Although the new Article 31C still exists on paper, it is not followed in courts today. Judges interpret it as it
existed before the 42nd Amendment, preserving the balance between rights and principles.

🌾 Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)

In another case involving agricultural land laws, the Supreme Court expanded the logic of Minerva Mills.

👩‍⚖️What the Court Decided:

 All constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) can be reviewed
by the judiciary.

 Even if a law is added to the Ninth Schedule (which usually protects it from court review), it can still
be challenged if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

✅ Final Takeaway: A Balance of Powers

Together, these two cases reaffirmed the core idea from Kesavananda Bharati:

🧩 The Constitution has a basic structure that Parliament cannot alter, and the judiciary has the final
authority to protect it.

This ensured a balance between:

 Parliament’s power to amend, and

 The judiciary’s power to review and protect fundamental values.

9. Sure! Here's a short and clear conclusion summarizing all the key cases and the Basic Structure
Doctrine:

🧾 Conclusion: The Evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine is one of the most significant contributions of the Indian judiciary to
constitutional democracy. It ensures that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it
cannot alter its core identity.

 In Golaknath (1967), the Court restricted Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights.
  Kesavananda Bharati (1973) established the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament can
amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its essential features.

 The Indira Gandhi Election Case (1975) reaffirmed that free and fair elections, judicial review, and
rule of law are part of the basic structure.

 The Forty-Second Amendment (1976) tried to give Parliament unlimited power and limit judicial
review.

 In Minerva Mills (1980) and Waman Rao (1981), the Court struck back, restoring the balance by
upholding that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features. It also
clarified that laws in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 can still be reviewed.

Together, these cases protect the Constitution from political misuse, ensuring that democracy,
fundamental rights, judicial independence, and the rule of law remain untouchable pillars of India’s
constitutional system.