1|Page

Keshavnand Bharti vs State of Kerela (AIR 1973 SC 1461)

Facts of Case
In the present case the petitioner had challenged the validity of Kerala Land Reforms Act,
1963. but during the pendency of the petition, the Kerala Land Reforms Act was amended in
1971 and was placed in 9th schedule by 29th Amendment Act 1972. The petitioners were
permitted to challenge the validity of this amendment.
it was held by the supreme court in “Shankari Prasad vs Union of India” [Air 1951 SC
458] that an act of parliament duly passed under Article 368 a relating to amendment of the
Constitution would be valid even if it curtailed (infringed) any of the fundamental rights
conferred by part 3 of the Constitution. This view proceeded on the ground that such an act
would not come under the expression “law”1 in article 13(2) as such expression is only
applicable to a legislative measure and not to constituent measure (eg. Amendment of
constitution).
The above view was affirmed by SC in its decision in “Sajjan Singh v State of
Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 846]
But the above view was over ruled by the supreme court in its later decision in well-known
“Golak Nath case”[AIR 1967 SC 1643] in which it was held that the word in article 13(2)
would not only cover a legislative measure but also a constituent measure. Therefore
Parliament has no power under Article 368 to make any law taking away or infringing any of
fundamental rights under part III of Constitution.
The Decision of Supreme Court also proceeded on the ground that Article 368 related only to
the procedure for amending the constitution but it did not confer any power on Parliament to
do so
The constitution 24th Amendment Act was passed to get over this decision of SC in Golak
Nath’s case. This amendment expressly empowers the Parliament to amend any provision of
constitution including those related to fundamental rights and further make articlwe 13 of
constitution inapplicable.
But it is plain that so long as Golaknath’s case stand the above amendment would itself be
impeachable.So also Golaknath’s case would come in the way of validity of other
constitutional amendments affecting the fundamental rights.The Constitution Amendment
25th 26th and 24th also falls under this category.

Legal Issue
1. Whether Golak Nath’s case was to be upheld or to be over-ruled
2. Whether Preamble can be amended or not?
Yes it can be amended but not its basic structure
3. Whether Preamble is part of constitution or not
Yes it is
2|Page

Decision
in this case a constitutional bench of 13 judges unanimously upheld the validity of 24th
Amendment Act and in doing so over ruled the prior decision given in golaknath case and
clear the way for upholding the validity of other constitution amendments which was
questioned before the special bench in the writ petition
Rregarding amendment of Preamble it was argued that Preamble is a part of constitution, its
provisions other than those relating to basic structure are much subject to amending process
under act Article 368 as other parts of constitution.The Preamble mentions various objectives
which are to be achieved
1. Justice
2. Liberty
3. equality
4. fraternity

Golaknath : Sub C overruled the decision of aforesaid cases & held that the word Law 13(c)
include every branch of law, statutory constitutional etc & hence if an amendment to
constitution took away fundamental rights of citizen, the amendment would be declared void.
24th Ammendment Act, 1971 : Clause (4) was added to article 13 make it clear that
constitutional amendment passed under article 56 shall not be considered as law within the
mean of article 13(hence cannot be challenged)

So it is concluded from the objective that Preamble is to secure justice to all citizens and its
direct state to promote the Welfare of people by securing and protecting as effective as it may
a social order
Finally it was decided that by virtue of amending power under Article 368 even Preamble can
be amended. it was decided that Preamble is a part of constitution and it could be amended
like any other provision of constitution except its basic structure. the Preamble contain basic
element of our constitution consequently it impose implied limitation on amending power
under Article 368 so this power can’t be used to destroy the basic structure of constitution
The validity of constitution( 24th Amendment Act 1971) was considered by Supreme Court
in Keshav Nanda Bharti Case . This overruled Golakhnath case and upheld validity of said
amendment