The Unfinished Constitution: Lessons from Kesavananda Bharati

The Supreme Court of India's 1973 landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which declared Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, is a testament to the evolving nature of our nation's foundational document.

Amending the Unamendable

When I first started studying Constitutional Law, I found myself getting bogged down in the complexities of the Indian Constitution's amendment process. What were the implications of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368? Can the President unilaterally amend the Constitution, or is the President's assent required? These questions, though critical to understanding our Constitution, often seemed like abstract concepts. The reality of the situation hit me hard when I failed to grasp them on my first attempt at the MH CET Law exam. The Kesavananda Bharati case, however, shed light on these intricacies. The Supreme Court, in a remarkable display of judicial activism, ruled that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited. While Parliament can amend most parts of the Constitution, certain fundamental rights and basic structures cannot be altered without the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament and ratification by the majority of the states.

The Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine, as enshrined in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, has far-reaching implications for our understanding of the Constitution. This doctrine, which prohibits any amendment that alters the basic structure or framework of the Constitution, ensures that our Constitution remains a dynamic yet resilient document. The Indian Constitution's Preamble, in particular, serves as a guiding light for this doctrine, outlining the fundamental principles that underlie our nation's governance. In contrast, our Constitution's amendment process also highlights the tension between the legislative and judicial branches of government. As the Kesavananda Bharati case demonstrated, the judiciary has played a vital role in safeguarding the Constitution against legislative overreach. The Indian Constitution's provisions, such as Article 368, which governs the amendment process, serve as a delicate balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

Lessons for Law Students

As law students preparing for exams like the MH CET Law, it's essential to grasp the nuances of the Indian Constitution's amendment process and the Basic Structure Doctrine. While the complexities of these concepts can be daunting, the Kesavananda Bharati case and other landmark judgments offer valuable insights into the Constitution's inner workings. In my own journey as a law student, I often found myself struggling to understand the abstract concepts of Constitutional Law. My failure to grasp these concepts on my first attempt at the MH CET Law exam was a humbling experience. However, my second attempt at the exam was a redemption of sorts, as I was better equipped to tackle the intricacies of Constitutional Law. The lessons I learned from the Kesavananda Bharati case and other landmark judgments have stayed with me, reminding me of the importance of persistence and a willingness to learn.