Kesavananda Bharati, head seer of Edaneer Mutt in Kasargod, died recently at 80. His 1970 petition challenging Kerala's land reforms Act gave rise to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling by a 13-judge bench. In a 7:6 verdict, the Court held Parliament could amend any constitutional provision under Article 368, but could not destroy the Constitution's basic structure — a doctrine that continues to govern constitutional amendment law in India.

The basic structure doctrine is the most consequential constitutional principle developed by Indian courts. It emerged from a direct collision between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.

Before Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Golak Nath case (1967) held by an 11-judge bench that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights at all. This was constitutionally rigid. The Indira Gandhi government responded by passing the 24th Amendment (Parliament can amend any provision including fundamental rights), the 25th Amendment (curtailed right to property; compensation determined by Parliament, not courts), and the 29th Amendment (placed Kerala Land Reforms Act in the Ninth Schedule, shielding it from judicial review).

The Kesavananda bench — 13 judges, the largest ever — overruled Golak Nath in part. Parliament could amend fundamental rights, but only if the amendment did not abrogate or alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. The doctrine found its decisive articulation in Justice HR Khanna's formulation.

The Court identified the basic structure as including: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, and federal character. Critically, right to property was held NOT to be part of the basic structure, so Bharati lost his specific case.

The doctrine's evolution continued: Minerva Mills (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's attempt to limit judicial review; SR Bommai (1994) used it to curb misuse of Article 356; and the NJAC judgment (2015) struck down the 99th Amendment replacing the collegium system.

For CLAT PG, the key test is: does the amendment destroy or abrogate the basic structure? Cosmetic changes survive; structural dismantlement does not.