Golaknath case

Also called: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) · Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"; Class 12, Ch 6 "The Crisis of Democratic Order"

Meaning

The Golaknath case (I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 27 February 1967) was a Supreme Court judgment. An 11-judge bench held, by 6:5, that a constitutional amendment is a "law" under Article 13. Because of this, Parliament cannot use an amendment to take away or abridge (cut down) fundamental rights. Earlier amendments were saved through prospective overruling.

It matters because it reversed Shankari Prasad (1951) and started an open clash between Parliament and the Supreme Court. Parliament answered with the 24th Amendment (1971), and the clash was settled in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Explanation

The question the Court had to answer

• Art. 13(2) says the State shall not make any "law" that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights in Part III. Any such law is void.
• Art. 368 is the article on amending the Constitution. In 1950 its heading was "Procedure for the Amendment of the Constitution" [4].
• The core question: is a constitutional amendment a "law" under Art. 13(2)?
• If no, Parliament can amend fundamental rights. This was the answer in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965).
• If yes, fundamental rights are beyond Parliament's reach. This was Golaknath's answer.

Facts and bench

• Facts: the Golaknath family challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The 17th Amendment (1964) had placed it in the Ninth Schedule. The Ninth Schedule is a list of Acts that cannot be challenged in court for breaking fundamental rights (Art. 31B).
• Bench: 11 judges, led by CJI K. Subba Rao. It was the largest bench up to that time.
• Result: 6:5. The majority was one judge.

What the majority held

• An amendment is "law" under Art. 13.

• So an amendment that takes away or abridges a Part III right is void.

• Art. 368 gives only the procedure for amendment, not the power.

• The Court used the 1950 heading, "Procedure for the Amendment…", as support [4].

• The power to amend comes from somewhere else.

• It comes from Parliament's ordinary law-making power.

• Its source is the residuary power (power over any subject not listed in the State or Concurrent Lists) under Art. 248 and Entry 97 of List I.

• Final result: Parliament cannot take away or abridge fundamental rights, even by amending the Constitution.

Prospective overruling: the limit the Court put on its own ruling

• Prospective overruling means a court's new ruling applies only to the future. It does not reopen what was done in the past.
• Golaknath was the first time an Indian court used it.
• What it saved:
• The 1st (1951), 4th (1955) and 17th (1964) Amendments stayed valid.

• The land reform laws passed under them also stayed valid.

• What it changed: only amendments made after 27 February 1967 would face the new limit.

• Why: striking down 16 years of land reform would have caused chaos.
• The dissent: the five minority judges said a past amendment could not be valid until 1967 and then invalid afterwards. In their view, that would mean judges were amending the Constitution.

In the Constitution and practice

• The road to Golaknath:
• 1st Amendment, 1951: the Provisional Parliament added Art. 31A, which protects laws for the State to acquire "estates" (landholdings) [3]. It also added Art. 31B and the Ninth Schedule, so that agrarian reform laws (laws on land ownership and tenancy) could not be challenged in court [3][5].
• Shankari Prasad (1951): "law" in Art. 13(2) means ordinary law made under legislative power. It does not cover an amendment made under constituent power (the power to make or change the Constitution). So fundamental rights could be amended.

• Sajjan Singh (1965): the majority upheld the 17th Amendment. Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar raised doubts. Mudholkar asked whether changing the Constitution's "basic features" would be rewriting it rather than amending it.

• After Golaknath, the conflict grew:

• R.C. Cooper (1970): the Court struck down the bank nationalisation law because its compensation was illusory (unreal, not a fair value).

• Madhav Rao Scindia (1970): the Court struck down the order abolishing privy purses (yearly payments promised to former princely rulers).

• Parliament's reply after the 1971 Lok Sabha election:

• 24th Amendment (1971):
  • It added Art. 13(4), so Art. 13 does not apply to amendments made under Art. 368 [6].
  • It renamed Art. 368 so that it speaks of a "power" to amend [4][6].
  • It made the President's assent to an amendment bill compulsory.
  • Together, these changes undid Golaknath.
• 25th Amendment (1971): it replaced "compensation" in Art. 31(2) with "amount" and added Art. 31C.

• 26th Amendment (1971): it abolished privy purses.

• Final outcome: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) moved away from Golaknath's position.

• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• But Parliament cannot destroy its basic structure (its core features).
• This grew out of Mudholkar's "basic features" idea.

Don't confuse with

• Shankari Prasad (1951): said an amendment is not "law" under Art. 13, so fundamental rights can be amended. Golaknath said the opposite.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) / basic structure: Parliament can amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the core features. Golaknath set a wider limit: no amendment could take away or abridge any fundamental right.
• Art. 31B's retrospective protection: a law placed in the Ninth Schedule is treated as never having been void, so a law already struck down can come back to life [2]. Prospective overruling in Golaknath works the other way. It leaves the past untouched and applies only to the future.
• R.C. Cooper (1970): this was the bank nationalisation case. It held that fundamental rights are not isolated compartments, overturning A.K. Gopalan. It came after Golaknath and is a different case.

Prelims Hooks

• Golaknath (1967): 11 judges, 6:5, CJI K. Subba Rao. It was the largest bench up to that time.
• Holding: an amendment is "law" under Art. 13. Art. 368 gives only the procedure. The power to amend comes from the residuary power (Art. 248, Entry 97 List I).
• Trap: Golaknath did not strike down the 1st, 4th or 17th Amendments. It saved them by prospective overruling, used for the first time in India.
• Law challenged: the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which the 17th Amendment (1964) had placed in the Ninth Schedule.
• Undone by: the 24th Amendment (1971), which added Art. 13(4) [6] and renamed Art. 368 to speak of a "power" to amend [4][6].
• Sequence: Shankari Prasad (1951) → Sajjan Singh (1965) → Golaknath (1967) → 24th Amendment (1971) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Mains Points

• Parliamentary sovereignty vs. rights:
• Shankari Prasad held that an elected Parliament must be able to push social reform, such as zamindari abolition, past courts that protect property.
• Golaknath held that an unlimited amending power could empty Part III.

• Neither extreme lasted. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) took the middle path: Parliament may amend any part, but cannot destroy the basic structure.

• Prospective overruling as judicial statesmanship:

• It let the Court lay down a new rule without undoing 16 years of land reform.

• Critics, including the five dissenting judges, said it amounts to judges acting like legislators.

• Political history (GS-I):

• Golaknath, followed by R.C. Cooper and the privy purses case, turned the conflict between Court and Parliament into an election issue.
• This led to the 1971 mandate, the 24th–26th Amendments and the push for a "committed judiciary" (judges who would support the government's policies).

Related concepts

• 1st Constitutional Amendment Act 1951
• Ninth Schedule
• Shankari Prasad case
• Sajjan Singh case
• Doctrine of prospective overruling
• R.C. Cooper case

Read more

• Parliament vs the judiciary I: from Shankari Prasad to Golaknath