I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is the landmark Supreme Court decision in which an 11-judge Special Bench held, by a narrow 6:5 majority, that Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Court overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), declaring that fundamental rights are "transcendental" and beyond the reach of the amending power under Article 368. This decision provoked a constitutional crisis that led directly to the 24th Amendment and the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), making it one of the most consequential — and most frequently examined — judgments in Indian constitutional law.
Case snapshot
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case name | I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab |
| Citation | AIR 1967 SC 1643 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | 11-judge Special Bench (CJ Subba Rao and 10 other Justices) |
| Date of judgment | 27 February 1967 |
| Subject | Constitutional Law — Amendment Power, Fundamental Rights |
| Key principle | Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights under Article 368; constitutional amendments that abridge Part III rights are void |
Facts of the case
The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, imposed a ceiling on agricultural holdings, and the surplus land was to be redistributed to tenants. The Golaknaths challenged this law as violating their fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. The State of Punjab relied on Article 31A (inserted by the First Amendment, 1951) which protected agrarian reform laws from fundamental rights challenges. The Golaknaths, in turn, challenged the constitutional validity of the First Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment (which added the Punjab Act to the Ninth Schedule). The case was referred to an 11-judge Bench because the question required reconsideration of the 5-judge decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh.
Issues before the court
- Whether the decision in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) — that Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Article 368 — was correctly decided?
- Whether a constitutional amendment that abridges or takes away fundamental rights is "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2)?
- Whether fundamental rights are beyond the amending power of Parliament?
What the court held
Parliament has no power to amend fundamental rights — By a 6:5 majority, the Court held that fundamental rights under Part III are given a "transcendental position" in the constitutional scheme and cannot be abridged or taken away by a constitutional amendment. Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for the majority, held that the power under Article 368 is only a procedure for amendment — it does not confer a substantive power to take away fundamental rights.
Constitutional amendments are "law" under Article 13(2) — Reversing Shankari Prasad, the majority held that an amendment to the Constitution is "law" for the purposes of Article 13. Since Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any "law" that takes away fundamental rights, a constitutional amendment abridging Part III rights is void to that extent.
Prospective overruling applied — In a significant procedural innovation, the Court applied the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in India. The ruling would apply only to future amendments — the First and Seventeenth Amendments already in force were saved. This meant the existing Ninth Schedule laws remained valid, but any future attempt to amend fundamental rights would be void.
"What are called fundamental rights are the primordial rights necessary for the development of the human personality. They are the rights which enable a man to chalk out his own life and to live it in his own way." — Chief Justice Subba Rao, for the majority
The 5-judge minority (Justices Wanchoo, Bhargava, Mitter, Bachawat, and Ramaswami) delivered a strong dissent, holding that the constituent power under Article 368 is distinct from ordinary legislative power and is not subject to Article 13(2). They warned that denying Parliament the power to amend fundamental rights would create an inflexible Constitution incapable of adapting to social needs.
Key legal principles
Fundamental rights as transcendental
The Golaknath majority elevated fundamental rights to a position of primacy in the constitutional scheme. The reasoning was that Part III rights are inherent in the people, pre-date the Constitution, and are recognized (not created) by it. Being transcendental in nature, they cannot be destroyed by the same Constitution's amending mechanism. This philosophical approach was later moderated by Kesavananda Bharati, which allowed amendment of fundamental rights while protecting the "basic structure."
Article 368 — procedure, not power
Chief Justice Subba Rao drew a crucial distinction: Article 368, in his reading, prescribes only the procedure for amendment. The substantive power to amend comes from the residuary legislative power. Since legislative power is subject to Article 13(2), any amendment that abridges fundamental rights must fall. This reasoning was controversial and was rejected by the 13-judge Bench in Kesavananda Bharati, which held that Article 368 confers both the procedure and the power to amend.
Prospective overruling
Golaknath introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling into Indian law — borrowed from American jurisprudence. By applying its ruling only to future amendments, the Court avoided the chaos that would have resulted from invalidating the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments retrospectively. All Ninth Schedule laws enacted before the judgment remained valid.
Significance
Golaknath v. State of Punjab triggered the most intense confrontation between Parliament and the judiciary in Indian constitutional history. In direct response to this decision, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, which amended Article 13 to expressly exclude constitutional amendments from its scope and amended Article 368 to clarify that it confers both the power and the procedure to amend any provision of the Constitution. This 24th Amendment was then challenged in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the 13-judge Bench upheld Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights but introduced the Basic Structure doctrine as the ultimate limit. Without Golaknath, there would have been no 24th Amendment, and without the 24th Amendment challenge, there would have been no Basic Structure doctrine. Golaknath is thus the essential middle chapter in the trilogy that defines the Indian constitutional order.
Exam angle
This case is essential for CLAT (constitutional law GK), Judiciary Prelims (Article 368 questions), and UPSC Law Optional (Paper I — amendment power essays).
- MCQ format: "The decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) was delivered by — (a) 5-judge Bench (b) 7-judge Bench (c) 11-judge Bench (d) 13-judge Bench." Answer: (c). Follow-up: "The majority was — (a) 6:5 (b) 7:4 (c) 8:3 (d) 9:2." Answer: (a).
- Descriptive format: "Critically examine the Golaknath judgment (1967). Was the Court justified in holding that fundamental rights are unamendable? How did the 24th Amendment and Kesavananda Bharati resolve this issue?" (Judiciary Mains / UPSC Law Optional)
- Key facts to memorize: 11-judge Bench; 6:5 majority; CJ Subba Rao authored the majority; decided 27 February 1967; overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965); first use of prospective overruling in India; triggered the 24th Amendment (1971); itself substantially overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
- Related provisions: Articles 13(2), 31A, 31B, 368, Ninth Schedule
- Follow-up cases: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — 13-judge Bench overruled Golaknath on the amending power question while introducing basic structure doctrine; Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — reaffirmed basic structure
Frequently asked questions
Was Golaknath v. State of Punjab overruled?
Yes. The 13-judge Constitution Bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) overruled Golaknath's holding that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights. The Kesavananda majority held that Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment (1971), which expressly overrode Golaknath legislatively, was upheld.
What is the doctrine of prospective overruling applied in Golaknath?
Prospective overruling means that a new legal rule established by overruling a previous decision applies only to future cases and events — it does not disturb rights and transactions that occurred under the old rule. In Golaknath, the Court overruled Shankari Prasad but declared that its new ruling (that fundamental rights are unamendable) would operate only prospectively. The First and Seventeenth Amendments, already enacted, were saved.
Why is Golaknath called the middle chapter of the "amendment trilogy"?
Constitutional law scholars describe Shankari Prasad (1951), Golaknath (1967), and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) as a trilogy on Parliament's amending power. Shankari Prasad held that Parliament can amend fundamental rights without limitation. Golaknath reversed this, holding Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights at all. Kesavananda Bharati found the middle ground: Parliament can amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the Constitution's basic structure. This trilogy is tested in almost every constitutional law examination.
What was the 24th Amendment, and how did it respond to Golaknath?
The Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, was Parliament's direct legislative response to Golaknath. It amended Article 13 by adding clause (4), which states that "nothing in this Article shall apply to any amendment made under Article 368." It also amended Article 368 to clarify that it confers both the power and the procedure to amend the Constitution, including Part III. The 24th Amendment was upheld by the Kesavananda Bharati Bench.