The outcome of Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala was a historical judgment passed by a special bench comprising of 13 judges of the Supreme Court of India on April 24, 1973. With a majority of 7-6 judges, they ruled that, the Article 368 of the Constitution "does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution".
‘The Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharathi Vs State of Kerala that although the 25th Amendment of 1971 was constitutional, the court still reserved for itself the discretion to reject any constitutional amendments passed by Parliament by declaring that the amendments cannot change the constitution's "basic structure”’(Source: Wikipedia.org)
There
are certain principles within the framework of Indian Constitution, which are
inviolable and hence cannot be amended by the Parliament. These principles are
commonly termed as 'Basic Structure'. The basic structure doctrine is the
judge-made doctrine where certain features of the Constitution of India are
beyond the limit of the powers of amendment of the Parliament of India. The
doctrine came in light with Kesavananda Bharati vs. The State of Kerala case.
The question whether fundamental rights can be amended under article 368 came for consideration in the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Case with First Amendment Act 1951. With basic feature in doctrine, the majority in Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala case held that second part of Section 3 of the Constitution 25th Amendment act, 1971 was invalid in Article 31-C. Indira Gandhi Government had reacted sharply by putting specified laws of acquisition of land beyond pail of Article 31 by engrafting exceptions in Article 31 A to Article 31 D. (Source: Case Study by Justice Sunil Ambwani). Art.31-A, except few clauses & Article 31-B read with 9th Schedule, gave blanket cover to certain enactments. Article 31-C was inserted by 25th amendment providing that any law which seeks to implement the directive in Article 39 (b) or 39 (c) with a view to plan the socialistic distribution of wealth and the means of production, was not to be void for any inconsistency with Art.14 or 19. (Source: Case Study by Justice Sunil Ambwani).
The
decision in Kesavananda Bharati vs. The
State of Kerala case with addition to the primary judgement (as stated
above) had further held that the immunity to any particular law to implement
the directive in Article 39 (c) is unconstitutional.
