I.C. Golaknath & Others v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Bench: Full Court — 11 Judges (K. Subba Rao CJ, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, R.S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, J.M. Shelat, V. Bhargava, G.K. Mitter & C.A. Vaidyalingam JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of land in Punjab. Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and its amendments (placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment), their surplus land was acquired. They challenged the constitutional validity of the First, Fourth, and 17th Amendments — arguing that constitutional amendments cannot abridge fundamental rights. The question was direct: can Parliament, through its amending power under Article 368, curtail or abridge the fundamental rights in Part III?
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does Parliament have the power under Article 368 to amend fundamental rights — including abridging or taking away the rights guaranteed by Part III?
- 2Is an amendment to the Constitution a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13 — which prohibits laws inconsistent with fundamental rights?
- 3Are the First, Fourth, and 17th Constitutional Amendments — which protected land reform legislation from fundamental rights challenge — constitutionally valid?
The Judgment
By a 6:5 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has NO power to amend fundamental rights — constitutional amendments that abridge fundamental rights are void. The Court held that Article 368 only provides the procedure for amendment — it does not confer a substantive power to amend fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are 'transcendental' and beyond Parliament's reach. The 1st, 4th, and 17th Amendments were held to have been made without authority — but since they had been in force for years and rights had accrued, the Court gave them prospective overruling effect (applying only from the date of the Golaknath judgment).
Key Principles Laid Down
PARLIAMENT CANNOT AMEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (OVERRULED): Golaknath held that Parliament's power under Article 368 is limited to procedural amendment — not the substantive power to abridge fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are immutable and beyond Parliament's reach. This was subsequently overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS 'LAW' UNDER ARTICLE 13: Golaknath held that a constitutional amendment is 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) — and since Article 13(2) prohibits laws abridging fundamental rights, constitutional amendments abridging fundamental rights are void. Kesavananda Bharati overruled this, holding that constitutional amendments are not 'law' under Article 13.
PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING INTRODUCED: Golaknath introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling in Indian law — the holding applied only from the date of the judgment, not retrospectively. This protected the validity of the earlier amendments (1st, 4th, 17th) which had been in operation for years.
OVERRULED BY KESAVANANDA BHARATI (1973): Golaknath was expressly overruled by the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati. The Kesavananda majority held Parliament CAN amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution — a middle ground between Gopalan (no power), Golaknath (no power over fundamental rights), and unlimited amending power.
HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE: Golaknath triggered both the 24th Constitutional Amendment (expressly conferring power on Parliament to amend Part III) and the Kesavananda Bharati challenge to that amendment. It is essential context for understanding why Kesavananda was decided the way it was.
Impact on Indian Law
Golaknath (1967) is the essential predecessor to Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and must be understood to fully appreciate why the Basic Structure doctrine was developed. Golaknath's absolute prohibition on fundamental rights amendments proved too restrictive — Parliament needed to enact land reform and social welfare legislation. Kesavananda Bharati resolved this by permitting amendments to fundamental rights while protecting the basic structure. Golaknath is also important for introducing prospective overruling into Indian constitutional law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Golaknath decide and was it overruled?
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) held by a 6:5 majority that Parliament has no power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 — constitutional amendments abridging fundamental rights are void. This was expressly overruled by the 13-judge Constitution Bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which held Parliament CAN amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
What is the doctrine of prospective overruling introduced in Golaknath?
The doctrine of prospective overruling, introduced in Golaknath (1967), means that a new legal rule established by a court applies only from the date of the judgment — not retrospectively to past transactions. This was used to hold that although the 1st, 4th, and 17th Amendments were made without authority, their past effects were not disturbed. The doctrine has been used in subsequent cases to manage the transition when long-standing legal rules are changed.