Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case.
The SC in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.
The Court asserted through the Basic Structure doctrine that the constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and values.
Key outcomes were:

Basic Structure Doctrine: It is a principle that limits Parliament’s power to amend the Indian Constitution. It holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the principle of separation of powers, cannot be amended by Parliament.
Judicial Review: The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which held that constitutional amendments through Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review, but only if they could affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’.
Exceptions to Judicial Review: At the same time, the Court also upheld the constitutionality of the first provision of Article 31-C, which implied that amendments seeking to implement the Directive Principles, which do not affect the ‘Basic Structure,’ shall not be subjected to judicial review.

Criticism of the doctrine

Dilution of powers: The basic structure doctrine has been criticized for diluting the principle of separation of powers and undermining the sovereignty of Parliament.
Ambiguous nature: It has also been criticized as a vague and subjective form of judicial review.

Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court applied the principle laid down in the Kesavananda ruling for the first time in this case. It struck down The Constitution (39^th Amendment) Act, 1975, which barred the Supreme Court from hearing a challenge to the election of President, Prime Minister, Vice-President, and Speaker of Lok Sabha.
Minerva Mills Ltd vs. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court struck down a clause inserted in Article 368, which said “there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution.”
P Sambamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1986): The Supreme Court struck down a portion of the 32nd Amendment (1973), which constituted an Administrative Tribunal for Andhra Pradesh for service matters, taking away the P jurisdiction of the High Court.
L Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court struck down a portion of the 42nd Amendment, which set up administrative tribunals excluding judicial review by High Courts.

Strengthen judicial review: The doctrine forms the basis of the power of the Indian judiciary to review and override amendments to the Constitution of India enacted by the Parliament.
Clarification about Article 368: Article 368 postulates only a ‘procedure’ for amendment of the Constitution. The same could not be treated as a ‘power’ vested in the Parliament to amend the Constitution to alter the ‘core’ of the Constitution, which has also been described as the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
Not antithetical to legislative authority: Justice Shastri said Judicial Review was undertaken by the courts “not out of any desire to tilt at legislative authority in a crusader’s spirit, but in the discharge of a duty laid down upon them by the Constitution”.
A system of checks and balances: The Kesavananda Bharati verdict (1973) made it clear that judicial review is not a means to usurp parliamentary sovereignty. It is a “system of checks and balances” to ensure constitutional functionaries do not exceed their limits.