The Basic Structure Doctrine: How Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati and the EWS Judgment Fenced In Parliament's Amending Power

A wave of 2025-26 retrospectives on India's landmark constitutional judgments converges on one enduring idea — that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its 'basic structure'; here is how that doctrine actually works in law.

Recent 'landmark judgments' retrospectives trace one continuous constitutional thread from the Berubari Union case and the 1967 Golaknath judgment, through the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, to the EWS reservation judgment — all concerning the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

The core question was whether a constitutional amendment counts as 'law' under Article 13(2), which voids laws abridging Part III rights. Golaknath said yes, barring Parliament from touching fundamental rights at all; Parliament's 24th Amendment reversed this via changes to Articles 13 and 368; Kesavananda Bharati's 13-judge bench then held Parliament can amend any part, including fundamental rights, but not damage the Constitution's 'basic structure' — features like judicial review (Articles 32, 226), rule of law, separation of powers, federalism and secularism. Articles 31B and 31C, used to shield laws from fundamental-rights scrutiny, became key battlegrounds for testing this doctrine, later applied to the EWS amendment.

For exams: remember the sequence — Berubari, Golaknath (1967, absolute bar), 24th Amendment, Kesavananda Bharati (1973, basic structure doctrine), and its later application in EWS — plus the key articles: 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 31B, 31C, 32, 226 and 368.