{"id":290424,"date":"2023-04-24T13:00:46","date_gmt":"2023-04-24T07:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=290424"},"modified":"2023-04-29T11:26:34","modified_gmt":"2023-04-29T05:56:34","slug":"kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","title":{"rendered":"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure&#8217;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n \"mainEntity\": [{\n \"@type\": \"Question\",\n \"name\": \"What happened in the case of Kesavananda Bharati case?\",\n \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n \"text\": \"The 13-Judge Constitution Bench in a 7:6 ratio gave birth to the &#8216;Doctrine of Basic Structure&#39; of the Constitution which impeded the power of the Parliament to amend the Fundamental Rights.\"\n }\n },{\n \"@type\": \"Question\",\n \"name\": \"Who is Kesavananda Bharati?\",\n \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n \"text\": \"Srimad Jagadguru Sri Sri Sankaracharya Thotakacharya Keshavanada Bharathi Sripadangalavaru was a Hindu monk who served as the Shankaracharya of Edneer Mut, a Hindu monastery in Kasaragod district, Kerela, India from 1961 until his death in 2020. He was the petitioner in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela, a landmark case that helped emergence of Doctrine of basic structure of the Indian Constitution vis-a-vis parliamentary amendment. He died in Kasaragod, Kerela on 06-09-2020 at the age of 79 due to Cardiac arrest.\"\n }\n },{\n \"@type\": \"Question\",\n \"name\": \"What is the Doctrine of Basic Structure?\",\n \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n \"text\": \"The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a common law legal doctrine which is the most fundamental judicial principles connected with the Indian Constitution. It states that the the Indian Constitution had a basic structure, and the Parliament of India cannot amend the same. It was in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela wherein it was observed that the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the essential features of the Constitution\"\n }\n }]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Preamble declaring India as \u2018Sovereign, Democratic and Republic.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Preamble betokens that which follows. It is a preliminary statement, a preface, prelude.<a id=\"fnref1\" title=\"1. Darrang Dhananjoy Das v. DM, Darrang, (1982) 2 SCC 521\" href=\"#fn1\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a> The Preamble of the Constitution set out aims and aspirations of the people of India which have been translated into various provisions of the Constitution. Preamble is in conformity with the provision of the Constitution and in a few words expresses the philosophy of the Constitution. The power to amend the Constitution must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and should not be exercised so as to destroy or abrogate the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Sovereignty cannot, therefore, be located in Parliament.<a id=\"fnref2\" title=\"2. Constitution of India (V.N. Shukla's): Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edition\" href=\"#fn2\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">For some time, it was assumed that the Preamble to the Constitution was not a part of the Constitution. But in view of the fact that unlike any other statute, whose Preamble is not presented in and passed by the enacting body, the Preamble to the Constitution was the first to be introduced in and the last to be adopted by the Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Court in <i>Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela<\/i><a id=\"fnref3\" title=\"3. (1973) 4 SCC 225\" href=\"#fn3\"><sup>3<\/sup><\/a> held that it was a part of the Constitution.<a id=\"fnref4\" title=\"4. Constitution of India (V.N. Shukla's): Mahendra Pal Singh, 12th Edition\" href=\"#fn4\"><sup>4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3>BACKGROUND<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">\u2018The Doctrine of Basic Structure&#8217; emerged from the landmark case of <i>Shankari Prasad v Union of India<\/i><a id=\"fnref5\" title=\"5. 1951 SCC 966\" href=\"#fn5\"><sup>5<\/sup><\/a>, which started a gigantic legal battle between the judiciary and the legislature in independent India.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The issue of consideration which was presented before the Court was <i>\u2018Whether the Fundamental Rights could be amended under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">368<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a>?&#8217;<\/i><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Validity of the First Amendment of the Constitution in the year 1951 was challenged in this case which curtailed the Right to Property. The Supreme Court upheld the First Constitutional Amendment in the present case, however, over the years it kept oscillating between the question whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights through Article 368 or not.<a id=\"fnref6\" title=\"6. 1951 SCC 966\" href=\"#fn6\"><sup>6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the case of <i>Sajjan Singh<\/i> v. <i>State of Rajasthan<\/i><a id=\"fnref7\" title=\"7. (1964) 4 SCR 630\" href=\"#fn7\"><sup>7<\/sup><\/a> Justice J.R. Mudholkar theorized the concept that the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> had basic features. He questioned <i>\u2018whether making a change in the basic feature of the Constitution of India could be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution, and if it fell within the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?&#8217;<\/i><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In this case, 17<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 was challenged wherein the Supreme Court had upheld <i>Shankari Prasad (Supra)<\/i> and stated that Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">368<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> empowered Parliament to amend any Article of the Constitution. It was also stated that Article 13 was limited to the Ordinary Laws. However, Justice M. Hidayatullah and Justice J.R. Mudholkar passed dissenting opinion and stated that Fundamental Rights were really fundamental which were not intended to be within the powers of amendment with other parts of the Constitution and without the concurrence of States. The said dissenting opinion gave rise to the biggest battel in Constitutional History since independence.<a id=\"fnref8\" title=\"8. (1964) 4 SCR 630\" href=\"#fn8\"><sup>8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the case of <i>I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab<\/i><a id=\"fnref9\" title=\"9. (1967) 2 SCR 762\" href=\"#fn9\"><sup>9<\/sup><\/a>, the general premise was Justice J.R. Mudholkar&#8217;s opinion on the basic feature which went to become the basic premise in the <i>Kesavananda Bharati case (Supra).<\/i> The majority opinion in <i>Golaknath (Supra)<\/i> reflected the uneasiness and skepticism in their minds about the then course of Parliament. The majority raised a very serious question over the State that when rights mentioned under Part III could not be affected by Parliament&#8217;s unanimous bill, then even simple or special majority votes could not do so. On the other hand, the minority opinion followed the earlier law laid down in\u00a0<span class=\"Emphasis\">Shankari Prasad case<\/span> <i>(Supra)<\/i>, thereby holding that Parliament had the power to amend entire Constitution including Fundamental Rights.<a id=\"fnref10\" title=\"10. (1967) 2 SCR 762\" href=\"#fn10\"><sup>10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">After the unprecedented decision of <i>Golaknath (Supra)<\/i> case, Parliament passed series of Amendments (24<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span>, 25<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> and 29<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendments) to indirectly overrule the said decision <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">24<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendment 1971<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The decision in <i>the Golaknath (supra)<\/i> judgment stated that every amendment under Article 368 would be hit by the exception of Article 13 which stated that in any law which violated the provision of Fundamental Rights, then that law would be void to the extent of the violation. This Article played a crucial role in ensuring that Parliament would be bound by the Fundamental Rights while exercising their law-making power. To neutralize this Article, Parliament, by way of an amendment, added Clause (4) to Article 13, which overrides the provision that any amendment under Article 368 would not be challenged under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574856\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">13<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a>. In order to remove all existing ambiguity, Parliament added clause 3 to Article 368 stating that <i>\u201cNothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this Article.\u201d<\/i> Parliament went on to amend Article 368(2) by differentiating between the procedure in an Amendment and an Ordinary Law. Post the Amendment, the President could not refuse or withhold the Amendment.<a id=\"fnref11\" title=\"11. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971| National Portal of India\" href=\"#fn11\"><sup>11<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">25<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendment 1972<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Earlier, Article 31 of the Constitution provided Fundamental Rights to Property and expressed that any person whose property was acquired by the Government was entitled to adequate compensation. By way of the 25<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> amendment, Parliament curtailed the Fundamental Rights to Property and substituted the word \u2018compensation&#8217; with \u2018amount&#8217; which indicated that Government would be liable to pay a nominal amount in case of acquisition of property for public purpose. Article 19 (1)(4) was disassociated with Article 31(2). Further, Article 31 (c) was added stating that any law passed to implement the objectives under Article 39 (a) and (b) could not be questioned, challenged, or reviewed before the Court of law for violating Fundamental Rights under Article 14,19 and 31.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Though by way of the 44<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> amendment, Parliament changed the Right to Property as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A from a Fundamental Rights.<a id=\"fnref12\" title=\"12. The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971| National Portal of India\" href=\"#fn12\"><sup>12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">29<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendment 1972<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">By way of 29<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendment, Parliament inserted Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 and Kerela Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 in the 9<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Schedule of the Constitution which made it outside the purview of judicial scrutiny. The 9<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Schedule through Article 31A and 31B of the Constitution contains a list of Central and State laws which fell outside the jurisdiction of judicial review.<a id=\"fnref13\" title=\"13. The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972| National Portal of India\" href=\"#fn13\"><sup>13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">What happened in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In a 13 Judge Bench<a id=\"fnref14\" title=\"14. The then Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea and Y.V. Chandrachud, former SC Judges\" href=\"#fn14\"><sup>14<\/sup><\/a>, only 9 judges signed the order, and the holding of the majority was clear on the aspect that under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575205\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">368<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution<\/a>, Parliament could not alter the \u2018basic structure or framework&#8217; of the Constitution but the same could not be stated with confidence regarding the Fundamental Rights as they were outside the scope of amending power.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">While commenting on the nature and features of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> and exploring the scope and ambit of the amending power of Parliament, Justice Hegde and Mukherjea stated that our Constitution contains certain features which were so essential that they could not be changed or destroyed from within.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the case of <i>Kesavananda Bharati case (Supra),<\/i> the petitioner had challenged the validity of many Central and Sate Amendments which included the Kerala&#8217;s Land Reforms which permitted the government to grab hold of land. This case also challenged the validity of the 24<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> and the 25<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Constitutional Amendment along with the 29<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Constitutional Amendment and contended that such amendments were directly in violation of their Fundamental Rights. By way of this landmark case, \u2018Doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution&#8217; emerged. In a 13- Judge Bench, the validity of the 29<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Constitutional Amendment was upheld by 7 Judges, which indicated that its validity was not upheld unconditionally. It was held that Parliament could amend every provision of the Constitution which was subject to the condition that it does not violate \u2018Basic Structure of the Constitution&#8217;. The minority opinion was reluctant to grant complete and unfettered authority to Parliament with respect to power of amendment. The Court upheld the entire 24<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Constitutional amendment and partly found the 25<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Amendment to be <i>ultra vires.<\/i><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Justice K.S. Hegde and Justice A.K. Mukherjea explained that the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> was not merely a political document but was a social document based on social philosophy. Every philosophy like religion contains features that were basic and circumstantial. While the former could not be altered, the latter could have. It was upon the Courts to see whether a particular amendment violates Basic Structure or not.<\/p>\n<h3>Conclusion<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The decision, which ran into 700 pages, stated that neither Parliament&#8217;s obligations were hindered nor were the rights of the citizens violated. This decision overruled the preceding cases <i>vis-\u00e0-vis<\/i> <i>Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh and Golaknath<\/i> which became the standard rule to check violation of constitutional provisions.<\/p>\n<h3>FAQs<\/h3>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Q. What happened in the case of Kesavananda Bharati case?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">A. <\/span>The 13-Judge Constitution Bench in a 7:6 ratio gave birth to the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure&#8217; of the Constitution which impeded the power of Parliament to amend the Fundamental Rights.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Q. Who is Kesavananda Bharati?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>A.<\/b> Srimad Jagadguru Sri Sri Sankaracharya Thotakacharya Keshavanada Bharathi Sripadangalavaru was a Hindu monk who served as the Shankaracharya of Edneer Mut, a Hindu monastery in Kasaragod district, Kerela, India from 1961 until his death in 2020. He was the petitioner in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela, a landmark case that helped emergence of Doctrine of basic structure of the Indian Constitution vis-a-vis parliamentary amendment. He died in Kasaragod, Kerela on 06-09-2020 at the age of 79 due to Cardiac arrest.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Q. What is the Doctrine of Basic Structure?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>A.<\/b> The Doctrine of Basic Structure is a common law legal doctrine which is the most fundamental judicial principles connected with the Indian Constitution. It states that the the Indian Constitution had a basic structure, and the Parliament of India cannot amend the same. It was in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela wherein it was observed that the Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend the essential features of the Constitution<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn1\" href=\"#fnref1\">1.<\/a> <i>Darrang Dhananjoy Das<\/i> v. <i>DM, Darrang<\/i>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000012931\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1982) 2 SCC 521<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn2\" href=\"#fnref2\">2.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> (V.N. Shukla&#8217;s): Mahendra Pal Singh, 12<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Edition<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn3\" href=\"#fnref3\">3.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000008876\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn4\" href=\"#fnref4\">4.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constitution of India<\/a> (V.N. Shukla&#8217;s): Mahendra Pal Singh, 12<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">th<\/span> Edition<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn5\" href=\"#fnref5\">5.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001279012\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1951 SCC 966<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn6\" href=\"#fnref6\">6.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001279012\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">1951 SCC 966<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn7\" href=\"#fnref7\">7.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000056863\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1964) 4 SCR 630<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn8\" href=\"#fnref8\">8.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000056863\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1964) 4 SCR 630<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn9\" href=\"#fnref9\">9.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000057795\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1967) 2 SCR 762<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn10\" href=\"#fnref10\">10.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0000057795\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">(1967) 2 SCR 762<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn11\" href=\"#fnref11\">11.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.india.gov.in\/my-government\/constitution-india\/amendments\/constitution-india-twenty-fourth-amendment-act-1971\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971| National Portal of India<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn12\" href=\"#fnref12\">12.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.india.gov.in\/my-government\/constitution-india\/amendments\/constitution-india-twenty-fifth-amendment-act-1971\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971| National Portal of India<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn13\" href=\"#fnref13\">13.<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.india.gov.in\/my-government\/constitution-india\/amendments\/constitution-india-twenty-ninth-amendment-act-1972\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1972| National Portal of India<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn14\" href=\"#fnref14\">14.<\/a> The then Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea and Y.V. Chandrachud, former SC Judges<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">Here is snippet on the evolution of &#8216;Doctrine of Basic Structure&#39; in the Independent India and how the biggest legal battle continued between the Judiciary and the Legislature, as the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225 enters its Golden Jubilee year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":290455,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32694],"tags":[57065,57066,57067,57068,7601,57059,57064,3268,57062,57058,57060,31021,30112,57063,57061],"class_list":["post-290424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-law-made-easy","tag-24th-amendment","tag-25th-amendment","tag-29th-amendment","tag-9th-schedule","tag-constitution-of-india","tag-democratic-and-republic","tag-doctrine-of-basic-structure","tag-Fundamental_Rights","tag-i-c-golaknath-v-state-of-punjab","tag-india-as-sovereign","tag-kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerela","tag-parliament","tag-preamble","tag-sajjan-singh-v-state-of-rajasthan","tag-shankari-prasad-v-union-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"50 years of the unprecedent case of Kesavananda Bharati and the &#039;Doctrine of Basic Structure&#039;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-04-24T07:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-29T05:56:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure&#039;\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/\",\"name\":\"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-04-24T07:30:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-29T05:56:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure&#8217;\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | SCC Blog","description":"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"50 years of the unprecedent case of Kesavananda Bharati and the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure'","og_description":"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-04-24T07:30:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-29T05:56:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure'","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/","name":"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp","datePublished":"2023-04-24T07:30:46+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-29T05:56:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Explore the Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution evolved in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973\u00a0with background and aftereffects.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/24\/kesavananda-bharati-vs-state-of-kerala\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"50 years of the unprecedented case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and the \u2018Doctrine of Basic Structure&#8217;"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/doctrine-of-basic-structure.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":235396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/06\/kesavananda-bharati-whose-petition-steered-the-way-to-the-basic-structure-doctrine-passes-away\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":0},"title":"Kesavananda Bharati, whose petition steered the way to the &#8216;Basic Structure doctrine&#8217;, passes away","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru, who initiated the case before the Supreme Court that gave us the \u2018Basic Structure\u2019 doctrine, passed away this morning at the age of 79 in his ashram at Edneer in north Kerala\u2019s Kasaragod district. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati filed a petition on March 21, 1970,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/keshav.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/keshav.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/keshav.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/keshav.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/keshav.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249404,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/07\/basic-structure-doctrine\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":1},"title":"Does basic structure doctrine applies to ordinary legislation","author":"Editor","date":"June 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Akash Baglekar\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235422,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/07\/the-untold-story-of-how-kesavananda-bharati-and-the-basic-structure-doctrine-survived-an-attempt-to-reverse-them-by-the-supreme-court-scc-archives\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":2},"title":"The Untold Story of How Kesavananda Bharati and the Basic Structure Doctrine Survived an Attempt to Reverse them by the Supreme Court [SCC Archives]","author":"Editor","date":"September 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by T.R. Andhyarujina\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;OP. ED.&quot;","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/SC-OpEd.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248236,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/15\/kenya-hc-president-cannot-be-both-player-and-umpire-in-the-same-match-basic-structure-of-the-constitution-is-sacrosanct-and-the-president-has-no-authority-under-the-constitution-t\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":3},"title":"Kenya HC| \u201cPresident cannot be both player and umpire in the same match\u201d; Basic Structure of the Constitution is sacrosanct, and the President has no authority under the Constitution to initiate changes to it","author":"Editor","date":"May 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Kenya: While deliberating upon constitutional petitions challenging the Building Bridges Initiative (hereinafter BBI) and the resulting controversial Constitution of Kenya Amendment Bill, 2020; the 5 Judge Bench of Joel M. Ngugi, G.V. Odunga, Ngaah Jairus, E.C. Mwita and Mumbua T. Matheka, JJ., held the following - The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":214893,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/21\/uganda-sc-constitutional-amendment-removing-age-limit-for-the-president-does-not-violate-the-basic-structure\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":4},"title":"Uganda SC | Constitutional Amendment removing age-limit for the President does not violate the Basic Structure","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Uganda: The Full Bench of Katureebe, CJ., Arach-Amoko, Mwangusya, Opio-Aweri, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, and Mugamba, JJ SC; and Tumwesigye, AG JSC upheld a Constitutional Amendment which negated age bar for the President and Local Council V Chairpersons. The Constitutional Court headed by Owiny-Dollo, DCJ. had declared that the Constitutional\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/Uganda-SC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":229136,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/05\/06\/basic-structure-doctrine-was-never-basal-to-the-constituent-assembly\/","url_meta":{"origin":290424,"position":5},"title":"Basic Structure Doctrine was never Basal to the Constituent Assembly","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ivan*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Basic-Structure-Doctrine.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=290424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/290424\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290455"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=290424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=290424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}