Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)
🔹 Case Name: I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Citation: 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
1. Background of the Case
The Golak Nath case addressed a crucial constitutional question:
Can Parliament amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution?
This case came at a time when the Parliament was asserting its power to pass land reform laws that conflicted with Fundamental Rights, especially Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Property).
The issue arose from the following background:
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 imposed ceilings on landholdings and redistributed surplus land.
Golak Nath and his family, who owned large tracts of land, challenged these Acts claiming that their fundamental rights to property were being violated.
The laws had been protected by constitutional amendments (First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments), placing them in the Ninth Schedule to make them immune from judicial review.
2. Legal Issue
Whether Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend or abridge Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution?
3. Arguments by Petitioners (Golak Nath family)
The Fundamental Rights are inalienable and sacrosanct.
Parliament cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, even through a constitutional amendment.
The power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited.
4. Arguments by the Government (Respondents)
Parliament, under Article 368, has the constituent power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
The word “amendment” includes the power to add to, modify, or repeal any provision, including those in Part III.
5. Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (6:5 majority) ruled in favor of the petitioners.
Held: Parliament has no power to amend or abridge Fundamental Rights.
🔹 Key Points from the Judgment:
Fundamental Rights are Transcendental and Inviolable:
The Court held that Fundamental Rights are given a “transcendental position” and cannot be curtailed or taken away by any law, including constitutional amendments.
Amendments are “Law” under Article 13(2):
The Court interpreted that constitutional amendments are included in the term “law” under Article 13(2).
Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. Hence, constitutional amendments cannot violate Fundamental Rights.
Article 368 is a Procedure, Not a Power:
The Court held that Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution.
It does not confer an independent power to amend; the power lies in Article 245–248, subject to Article 13(2).
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
For the first time in Indian constitutional law, the Court used the doctrine of “prospective overruling.”
The judgment would apply prospectively—i.e., all amendments passed before this decision would remain valid, but any future amendment abridging Fundamental Rights would be invalid.
6. Impact of the Golak Nath Case
Put a significant restriction on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Caused political uproar—especially among the ruling government—which believed this limited their ability to implement progressive socio-economic reforms.
Directly led to the enactment of the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971), which:
Expressly gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Added Clause (4) to Article 13, stating that nothing in Article 13 would apply to constitutional amendments.
7. Overruling by Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a larger 13-judge bench overruled Golak Nath.
Held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
Introduced the famous “Basic Structure Doctrine” to protect the core values of the Constitution.
8. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Golak Nath v. State of Punjab |
| Citation | 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762 |
| Bench Strength | 11 Judges |
| Majority Opinion | 6:5 (Majority ruled against Parliament’s power) |
| Key Issue | Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? |
| Judgment | Parliament cannot abridge Fundamental Rights |
| Doctrine Used | Prospective Overruling |
| Later Overruled by | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) |
| Impact | Led to 24th Amendment giving Parliament wider powers |
âś… Conclusion
The Golak Nath case (1967) marked a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It temporarily restricted Parliament from amending Fundamental Rights and gave a judicial shield to individual liberties. While later overruled by Kesavananda Bharati, the case remains significant for introducing doctrinal innovations like prospective overruling, and for igniting the debate over the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments