Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India (1973)

I totally disagree with this landmark judgment, mate. In my internship, I saw how complex it made the Indian Constitution. They ruled that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute, but the Parliament can amend or repeal any constitutional provision except those which change the basic structure of the Constitution. The problem is, who decides what constitutes the basic structure? It's like, what's the benchmark? The court said it's for the courts to decide, but that's a recipe for disaster. In theory, it seems cool to have checks and balances, but in practice, it's a bloody nightmare to navigate. I mean, what about future cases where we have a bunch of amendments? Will every judge have the same opinion on what's basic structure and what's not? It's too much to handle, honestly.