Abstract

Historically, democracies have turned out to be fragile institutions and while documents such as the Indian Constitution are the crystallization of the ideals of a young nation, the governments that come in the future tend to be pragmatists and such pragmatism is more than likely to betray those ideals. The judgement of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela by the Supreme Court of India is cornerstone of this very tryst between the pragmatism of growing India’s legislature and the morality of the Constitution, being protected by the judiciary. The judgement essentially gave a blanket veto in the hands of the judiciary over preserving the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, ensuring that the ideals of India’s Constitution makers do not get compromised by the interests of whichever government that comes to power. This case commentary intends to analyze the history of this dispute, its ramifications, the merits it has and the flaws it creates in Indian legal discourse, since the judgement is not perfect in nature.

Keywords