(Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970), also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.

At the same time, the Court also upheld the constitutionality of the first provision of Article 31-C, which implied that laws seeking to implement the Directive Principles, which do not affect the 'Basic Structure,' shall not be subjected to judicial review.

The 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual.

[4] When this case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was unprecedented.

In February 1970 Swami Kesavananda Bharati, senior pontiff and head of the Hindu monastery Edneer Matha in Edneer, Kasaragod District, Kerala, challenged the Kerala government's attempts, under two land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property.

A noted Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, convinced Swami into filing his petition under Article 26, concerning the right to manage religiously owned property without government interference.

[14] The nine signatories to the statement were Four judges did not sign the judgment CJI S M Sikri held that the fundamental importance of the freedom of the individual has to be preserved for all times to come and that it could not be amended out of existence.

According to the learned Judges, Parts III and IV of the Constitution which respectively embody the fundamental rights and the directive principles have to be balanced and harmonised.

Held that the word 'amendment' was used in the sense of permitting a change, in contradistinction to destruction, which the repeal or abrogation brings about.

The word 'amendment' could not possibly embrace the right to abrogate the pivotal features and the fundamental freedoms and therefore, that part of the basic structure could not be damaged or destroyed.

While as per the aforesaid views of the six learned Judges, certain "essential elements" (which included fundamental rights) of the judgment cannot be amended as there are certain implied restrictions on the powers of the parliament of India.

In the 1980 case Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment.