5.2.2. Kesavananda Bharti case, 1973

Disputes continued to arise from time to time as organs of the State exceeded their assigned boundaries under the Constitution. This question of what amounts to an excess, was the basis for action in the landmark Kesavananda Bharti case of 1973.

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was in regard to the extent of the power of the legislature to amend the Constitution as provided for under the Constitution itself. It was argued that Parliament was “supreme” and represented the sovereign will of the people. As such, if the people’s representatives in Parliament decided to change a particular law to curb individual freedom or limit the scope of judicial scrutiny, the judiciary had no right to question whether it was constitutional or not.

Court’s Ruling: The Court did not allow this argument and instead found in favour of the appellant on the grounds that the doctrine of separation of powers was a part of the “basic structure” of our Constitution.

Thus, the doctrine of “separation of powers” is acknowledged as an integral part of the basic features of our Constitution. It is also expected that in the overall interest of the country, even though their jurisdictions of organs of state are separated and demarcated, all the institutions would work in harmony and co-operation to maximize the public good.

As per this ruling, there was no longer any need for ambiguity as the doctrine was expressly recognized as a part of the Indian Constitution, unalterable even by an Act of Parliament. Thus, the doctrine of separation of powers has been incorporated, in its essence, into the Indian laws.