The Golaknath case, decided by the Supreme Court of India on February 27, 1967, held by a 6:5 majority that Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution in a way that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III. The ruling in I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab reversed two earlier precedents, treated a constitutional amendment as “law” under Article 13, and placed fundamental rights beyond the reach of Parliament’s amendment power — until it was itself overruled six years later.1Indian Kanoon. I. C. Golaknath and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anrs
How a Punjab Land Dispute Became a Constitutional Test
The Golaknath family owned roughly 500 acres of farmland in Punjab. Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, individual holdings were capped at 30 standard acres, and the state classified 418 acres of the family’s estate as surplus for redistribution to landless tenants.2India Code. Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
The family petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that the Punjab law violated their fundamental rights to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) and to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g).3Constitution of India. Article 19 – Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech Etc Standing in their way was the Ninth Schedule, added by the First Amendment in 1951, which immunized listed laws from being struck down for violating fundamental rights.
In 1964, Parliament passed the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, which added 44 more state laws to the Ninth Schedule — including the very statute being used against the Golaknaths.4Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice. The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 The family responded by attacking the amendment itself. Their argument: Parliament cannot use the amendment process to abridge the fundamental rights the Constitution was written to protect. What began as a fight over farmland became a challenge to the amendment power itself.
The Precedents Standing in the Way
Two prior Supreme Court decisions had already settled the question in Parliament’s favor.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Court upheld the First Amendment and held that the word “law” in Article 13 meant only ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments made under Article 368. In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Court reaffirmed that reasoning and specifically upheld the Seventeenth Amendment. But two dissenting judges in Sajjan Singh had questioned whether Parliament’s amendment power was really unlimited. The door was ajar, and the Golaknath family walked through it.
Article 13 Versus Article 368: The Core Question
The case turned on how two provisions relate to each other.
Article 13(2) says the State “shall not make any law which takes away or abridges” fundamental rights, and any such law is void to the extent of the violation.5Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 13(2) The petitioners argued that “law” here includes constitutional amendments. If so, any amendment that reduces fundamental rights is automatically void.
The government relied on Article 368, which sets out the procedure for amending the Constitution.6Constitution of India. Article 368 – Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution and Procedure Therefor Its lawyers argued that Article 368 grants a special “constituent power” that sits above ordinary legislation and is not restrained by Article 13. On that reading, Parliament could modify any part of the Constitution.
The 6:5 Majority Holding
An eleven-judge bench delivered the judgment on February 27, 1967. Chief Justice Subba Rao led the majority, joined by Justices Shah, Sikri, Shelat, and Vaidialingam, with Justice Hidayatullah concurring separately. Their conclusions:
A constitutional amendment qualifies as “law” under Article 13(2) and is therefore subject to the restrictions in Part III. Article 368 prescribes only the procedure for amendment and does not by itself confer substantive power to amend. Fundamental rights hold what the Court described as a “transcendental position” in the Constitution and cannot be abridged or taken away through the amendment process.1Indian Kanoon. I. C. Golaknath and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anrs
Parliament, in the Court’s view, was a creature of the Constitution, not its master. From the date of the decision forward, any attempt to amend Part III in a way that reduced fundamental rights would be void.
The Dissent
Justices Wanchoo, Bhargava, Mitter, Bachawat, and Ramaswami dissented, and their reasoning would prove decisive later. They argued that Article 368 plainly contains both the power and the procedure to amend, since its own language says “the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the bill.” The word “law” in Article 13(2), they said, means legislation enacted under ordinary lawmaking power, not amendments made under the constituent power in Article 368. If the framers had wanted to shield fundamental rights from amendment, they could have said so; their silence was itself an answer. The dissenters also warned that placing Part III beyond amendment would leave the Constitution with no way to adapt fundamental rights to changing conditions.
A single vote separated the two sides. That margin, and the force of the dissent, signaled the question was not truly closed.
Why the Golaknath Family Still Lost Their Land
The majority faced a real problem. If amendments abridging fundamental rights were void, then the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments — the legal spine of years of land redistribution — were technically invalid. Undoing them retroactively would have unraveled property arrangements across the country.
Chief Justice Subba Rao’s answer was to import the doctrine of prospective overruling from American constitutional law, drawing on the reasoning in Linkletter v. Walker (1965).7Justia. Linkletter v. Walker The ruling would apply only going forward. The Seventeenth Amendment and every earlier amendment affecting fundamental rights stayed valid. But from February 27, 1967 onward, Parliament would “have no power to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights enshrined therein.”1Indian Kanoon. I. C. Golaknath and Ors vs State of Punjab and Anrs The Court also limited the doctrine to the Supreme Court, and only in constitutional matters.
The compromise held existing land reforms in place while shutting the door on future ones that touched fundamental rights. The Golaknaths won the constitutional argument and lost their farm.
Parliament’s Response: The Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Parliament answered in 1971 with the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, drafted to dismantle Golaknath piece by piece. It rewrote Article 368 to state expressly that Parliament may, “in exercise of its constituent power, amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution.”6Constitution of India. Article 368 – Power of Parliament to Amend the Constitution and Procedure Therefor It added Article 368(3), which declared that “nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article,” severing the link that Golaknath had built.8Indian Kanoon. Constitution of India – Article 368 And it made presidential assent to constitutional amendment bills mandatory. Every pillar of Golaknath was targeted.
Kesavananda Bharati Overrules Golaknath
The showdown came in 1973. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a thirteen-judge bench — the largest ever assembled by the Supreme Court — heard a challenge to the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth Amendments and reconsidered Golaknath in full.
By 7:6, the Court overruled Golaknath. Parliament, it held, does have the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. But the Court replaced Golaknath’s absolute bar with a different limit: Parliament cannot use the amendment power to destroy or damage the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Certain foundational features are inviolable, and amendments that alter them can be struck down.
Justice Khanna’s decisive opinion held that while Parliament could amend fundamental rights, it could not alter the Constitution’s basic framework. The basic structure doctrine has governed Indian constitutional law ever since, achieving what Golaknath had aimed at through a more flexible test.
The Right at the Center of the Case Was Later Removed
The very right that started the dispute did not survive as a fundamental right. In 1978, the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act repealed Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, moving the right to property out of Part III.9Indian Kanoon. Article 31 in Constitution of India It was replaced by Article 300A, which says only that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.
The change is significant. A fundamental right can be enforced directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32. A constitutional right under Article 300A must be pursued through the High Courts or ordinary channels. The property right that the Golaknaths fought to protect turned out to be one of the parts of the Constitution that Parliament could — and did — take out.