I.C. Golaknath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another
Commonly called:
Golaknath case.
Supreme Court of India.
The case was decided by an:
11-judge Constitution Bench.
It was one of the largest Constitution Benches in the early history of the Supreme Court.
The Golaknath family owned substantial agricultural land in:
Punjab.
Their property was affected by:
Punjab land reform legislation
and:
Pepsu land reform legislation.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional protection given to such laws.
The dispute concerned the constitutional validity/effect of:
First Constitutional Amendment, 1951.
and:
Fourth Constitutional Amendment, 1955.
The petitioners also challenged the constitutional amendments that protected land reform legislation.
Before Golaknath, the Supreme Court had taken a broad view of Parliament's amendment power.
→ Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
→ Broad amendment power reaffirmed.
The major question was:
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights through the constitutional amendment procedure under Article 368?
Article 13 provides:
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency.
By a narrow:
6:5 majority,
the Supreme Court held that:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights through the constitutional amendment process.
The majority treated a constitutional amendment as:
"Law" for the purposes of Article 13.
Therefore:
A constitutional amendment abridging or taking away Fundamental Rights would be invalid.
Constitutional amendment ≠ law under Article 13.
Constitutional amendment is subject to Article 13.
Golaknath:
Overruled the earlier approach.
Reaffirmed Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Rejected that position.
A major issue concerned:
Whether Article 368 gave Parliament an independent source of constituent power,
or merely:
A procedure for constitutional amendment.
The majority reasoned that:
Article 368 primarily prescribed the procedure for amendment.
The power to amend:
Did not create unlimited constituent power in Parliament.
The decision challenged the idea that:
Parliament could use Article 368 to alter any part of the Constitution without substantive limitations.
The majority considered Fundamental Rights to have a:
Special constitutional status.
Parliament could not:
Take them away through constitutional amendment.
The judgment emphasised:
Protection of individual liberty
against:
Constitutional majoritarianism.
One of the most important innovations in Golaknath was:
The doctrine of prospective overruling.
The Court's new rule:
Would apply prospectively.
Earlier constitutional amendments already made under the previous legal understanding:
Were not invalidated retrospectively.
The Court recognised that:
Governments and legislatures had relied on the earlier Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh decisions.
The Court said, in substance:
Existing constitutional amendments would remain valid.
But:
Future amendments could not abridge Fundamental Rights under the new doctrine.
This avoided:
Legal chaos
that could have resulted from invalidating decades of:
Land reform legislation and constitutional amendments.
The Golaknath judgment is generally regarded as the landmark introduction of:
Prospective overruling
in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
The case was deeply connected with:
Agrarian reform.
The petitioners challenged:
Constitutional protection given to land reform laws.
The land reform laws had been protected through:
Ninth Schedule.
The litigation therefore also raised:
The scope of constitutional immunity from Fundamental Rights challenges.
The Ninth Schedule had originally been created by:
First Constitutional Amendment, 1951.
The Golaknath decision generated a major constitutional response.
Parliament enacted:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
The 24th Amendment was designed to:
Restore and strengthen Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
The amendment inserted:
Article 13(4).
It provided that:
Article 13 would not apply to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
The 24th Amendment also clarified that:
Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution.
The 24th Amendment made:
Presidential assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill mandatory.
The President:
Shall give assent
when the Bill is properly passed under the constitutional procedure.
Golaknath → Limits amendment of Fundamental Rights.
24th Amendment → Restores amendment power.
No.
The next major constitutional development was:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973.
The Supreme Court adopted a:
Middle path.
Parliament:
Can amend Fundamental Rights.
But:
Cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights cannot be amended.
Fundamental Rights can be amended, subject to Basic Structure.
It rejected:
Golaknath's absolute protection
while also rejecting:
Unlimited parliamentary power.
Shankari Prasad, 1951 → Broad power.
Sajjan Singh, 1965 → Broad power reaffirmed.
Golaknath, 1967 → Fundamental Rights protected.
24th Amendment, 1971 → Parliamentary power strengthened.
Kesavananda, 1973 → Amendment power + Basic Structure limitation.
Golaknath:
Did not establish the Basic Structure Doctrine.
But:
It significantly contributed to the constitutional debate that led to Kesavananda.
Golaknath represents an important exercise of:
Judicial review over constitutional amendments.
The judgment emphasised:
Fundamental Rights as constitutional limitations on political majorities.
Golaknath rejected the idea that:
Parliament possesses unlimited constitutional authority.
India follows:
Constitutional supremacy
rather than:
Absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
The judgment reflected a broader constitutional concern:
Fundamental Rights should protect individuals and minorities from temporary political majorities.
The judgment illustrates the judiciary's role as:
Guardian of the Constitution and Fundamental Rights.
Golaknath was criticised for:
Giving Fundamental Rights an unusually rigid status.
Critics argued:
An unelected judiciary should not completely freeze constitutional development in areas requiring social reform.
India's Constitution was designed to:
Enable social and economic transformation.
An absolutely rigid Fundamental Rights framework could:
Make reform difficult.
Parliament considered:
Constitutional amendment power essential
for adapting the Constitution to:
The doctrine allowed the Court to:
Change constitutional interpretation
without:
Invalidating all past actions taken under the earlier interpretation.
It represented:
A balance between legal certainty and constitutional correction.
The case demonstrates:
Judicial precedent can evolve without always producing full retrospective consequences.
Golaknath connects:
Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments.
Article 13 applies to constitutional amendments.
Article 13(4) expressly excludes constitutional amendments.
Constitutional amendment procedure.
Questioned whether Article 368 itself conferred substantive constituent power.
Explicitly strengthened Parliament's power to amend.
Today:
Fundamental Rights can be amended.
But:
A constitutional amendment cannot destroy the Basic Structure.
The Supreme Court has recognised that:
Some core constitutional values connected with Fundamental Rights may form part of the Basic Structure.
Do not say:
"All Fundamental Rights are individually Basic Structure."
Correct:
Their core/essential features may be protected where they form part of the Basic Structure.
The Supreme Court held that:
Ninth Schedule laws inserted after 24 April 1973 are subject to Basic Structure review.
Because:
Parliament cannot use the Ninth Schedule as an absolute shield to destroy Basic Structure.
→ Amendment of Fundamental Rights.
→ Ninth Schedule and Basic Structure review.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
1967.
11 judges.
6:5.
Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Fundamental Rights could not be amended through Article 368 under the judgment's interpretation.
Article 13.
Applied.
Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh.
24th Amendment, 1971.
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973.
Golaknath upheld Parliament's unlimited power to amend Fundamental Rights.
❌ Wrong.
It:
Restricted that power.
Golaknath established Basic Structure.
❌ Wrong.
Kesavananda Bharati.
Golaknath struck down all previous constitutional amendments.
❌ Wrong.
It adopted:
Prospective overruling.
Prospective overruling means the decision applies only to past laws.
❌ Wrong.
It means:
New legal rule operates prospectively while earlier actions are generally preserved.
The 24th Amendment was enacted before Golaknath.
❌ Wrong.
Golaknath:
24th Amendment:
The 24th Amendment abolished Article 13.
❌ Wrong.
It inserted:
Article 13(4).
Golaknath held Article 13 could never apply to constitutional amendments.
❌ Wrong.
It moved in the opposite direction:
Article 13 could constrain constitutional amendments.
Kesavananda simply reaffirmed Golaknath.
❌ Wrong.
It:
Rejected Golaknath's absolute ban on amendment of Fundamental Rights.
Golaknath concerned only ordinary land legislation.
❌ Wrong.
It raised a fundamental constitutional question concerning:
Parliament's amendment power.
The case had a unanimous decision.
❌ Wrong.
6:5 majority.
Shankari Prasad → Broad amendment power.
Sajjan Singh → Broad power reaffirmed.
Golaknath → Fundamental Rights cannot be amended.
24th Amendment → Parliamentary power strengthened.
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills → Limited amending power.
I.R. Coelho → Ninth Schedule review.
| Case / Amendment | Position |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad, 1951 | FR can be amended |
| Sajjan Singh, 1965 | FR can be amended |
| Golaknath, 1967 | FR cannot be amended |
| 24th Amendment, 1971 | Parliament's power strengthened |
| Kesavananda, 1973 | FR can be amended but Basic Structure protected |
| Minerva Mills, 1980 | Limited amending power is Basic Structure |
| I.R. Coelho, 2007 | Ninth Schedule subject to Basic Structure review |
→ Limits on amendment power.
→ Strong judicial review.
→ Protection of Fundamental Rights.
→ Parliament vs Judiciary.
→ Prospective overruling.
Golaknath can be seen as:
A strong rights-protective judgment
but also:
An excessively rigid interpretation of constitutional amendment power.
The Constitution needed to balance:
Individual rights
with:
Democratic constitutional change.
The solution was:
Amendability + Basic Structure limitation.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) was a landmark 11-judge Constitution Bench decision that temporarily restricted Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. By a narrow 6:5 majority, the Court held that constitutional amendments were subject to Article 13 and therefore could not abridge Fundamental Rights.
24th Amendment, 1971
→ Article 13(4).
→ Stronger Article 368.
→ Express amendment power.
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
→ Fundamental Rights amendable.
→ Basic Structure cannot be destroyed.
Golaknath represents an important rights-protective phase in India's constitutional development. Though its absolute position on amendability did not survive Kesavananda, its insistence that constitutional change remains subject to judicial scrutiny contributed significantly to the emergence of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
