As the custodian of the constitution, 13 judges of the Supreme Court gave such a decision in the year 1973, due to which Kesavanand Bharti has become immortal in the constitutional history of the country even after death. After the internal infighting of the Congress and the war with Pakistan, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi enacted many laws like the nationalization of banks, the abolition of the privy purse, and inclusion of the Land Acquisition Act in states in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and 24th, 25th in the Constitution through Parliament And made the 29th amendment.

The case of 'Kesavanand Bharti vs the State of Kerala' was heard for five days for 68 days, which is the record for the longest hearing in the Supreme Court. After a 40-day hearing in the Ayodhya case, five judges unanimously gave their verdict in favor of the Ram temple in 1,045 pages, while in the Kesavananda Bharati's case, out of thirteen, seven judges gave a majority in nearly 800 pages. This decision of a total of 2,144 pares consisted of 11 separate decisions, in which most of the provisions of the Constitution were reviewed. According to this decision, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the sharing of powers, the federal system of the center-state, the republic, and the parliamentary system are part of the basic structure of the constitution, which cannot be changed by constitutional amendment.

The decision was followed by a huge upset in the government, parliament, and the Supreme Court. The next day after the retiring of Chief Justice SM Sikri, the Indira government ignored the seniority of the three judges and made Justice Ray the Chief Justice, against which the three senior judges resigned. Renowned constitutionalist CK Daftari described the development as the dark day of Indian democracy. Fundamental rights were completely crushed in the Emergency. In the ADM, Jabalpur's case, instead of granting fundamental rights, the Supreme Court stamped the court on government repression. The decision of Kesavananda Bharti reflects the sharpness of the Supreme Court.

Many provisions of the Kesavananda decision were rejected by the Indira government with the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act. However, the Janata Party government quashed all such decisions of the Indira government. The Indira government included words like 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the preamble of the constitution, which could not be removed. Considering the fundamental part of the constitution, the objection is now being taken to remove those provisions. The question is why the provisions that were incorporated by the constitution amendment cannot be removed by the majority government through a constitutional amendment. Keshavanand's case is also seen as a confrontation between the government and the judiciary for dominance. Indira Gandhi arbitrarily got an immediate edge over the judiciary in appointing the Chief Justice. But nine years after this decision, judges in the SP Gupta case established complete supremacy through the collegium system in the appointment.

In 2015, a five-judge bench made harsh comments on the inconsistent appointment system of judges, but there has been no improvement in the collegium system so far. In the Sushant Singh Rajput case, the dynasty is being debated in the film industry. But there is little debate on the coincidence that the sons or nephews of more than six judges who gave the verdict in the Kesavanand case became judges and chief justices of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Kesavananda's decision became a judgment in the courts of Bangladesh and Pakistan along with India. Apart from the Government of Kerala, several well-known lawyers had debated on behalf of other states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan in the Kesavananda case. Soli Sorabjee, who argued in that case, is still considered the lighthouse of the constitution in the Supreme Court. 47 years later, the Kesavanand case is still mentioned in many decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.