What was decided in Golaknath v. State of Punjab?

The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not curtail Fundamental Rights. Amendments cannot take away or abridge rights in Part III.

Which law was challenged by the Golaknath family?

They challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and questioned the 17th Constitutional Amendment that placed it in the Ninth Schedule.

What was the bench strength and result split?

The case was heard by the largest bench at that time. The decision was 6:5 in favour of the petitioners.

How did Golaknath affect Article 368?

The Court read limits into the amending power. Parliament’s power under Article 368 could not be used to damage Fundamental Rights.

Why is Golaknath important for constitutional law students?

It set the stage for the later Basic Structure doctrine and taught that rights are placed beyond ordinary majorities.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643

Can Parliament cut down Fundamental Rights using its amending power? This page explains the case in clean, classroom-style English.

Supreme Court of India 1967 Bench: Largest then AIR 1967 SC 1643 Art. 13, Art. 368 Reading time: 7–9 min

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court asked: can Parliament use Article 368 to cut down Fundamental Rights? In Golaknath, the answer was no. The Court said Parliament cannot take away or abridge rights in Part III by amendment.

This ruling protected rights and influenced later cases on the Constitution’s structure and limits on amending power.

Issues

Does Parliament have absolute power to amend the Constitution?
Can Parliament amend or curtail Fundamental Rights in Part III?

Rules

Holding: Parliament cannot use its amending power to take away or reduce Fundamental Rights. Such rights are kept beyond ordinary amending reach.

The Court read limits into Article 368 when it touches Part III protections.

Facts (Timeline)

Henry and William Golaknath’s family owned 500+ acres in Jalandhar, Punjab.
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act limited holdings; surplus land identified.
Family challenged the law, invoking Articles 14 and 19(1)(f),(g).
The 17th Amendment placed the Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule.
A petition under Article 32 reached the Supreme Court in 1965; decision in 1967.

Timeline illustration of Golaknath case facts

Arguments

Petitioners (Golaknath)

Rights in Part III are superior; Parliament cannot cut them down.
Placing laws in the Ninth Schedule cannot defeat core rights.

Respondents (State)

Article 368 gives a wide amending power, including Part III.
Land reform is a policy choice shielded by constitutional amendments.

Judgment

By a 6:5 majority, the Court ruled for the petitioners. It held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights.

The majority (CJI K. Subba Rao with J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidiyalingam; Hidayatullah, J. concurring separately) overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh on the point of amending Part III.

Judgment highlight graphic for Golaknath

Ratio Decidendi

Article 368 does not allow curtailment of Fundamental Rights.
Rights in Part III stand above ordinary amendment politics.
Ninth Schedule cannot be used to bypass core rights protections.

Why It Matters

The case built a strong shield around Fundamental Rights and paved the way for later doctrines on constitutional limits. It warned against turning democratic power into unchecked power.

Key Takeaways

Rights Shield

Fundamental Rights cannot be reduced by amendment.

Limits on 368

Article 368 is powerful but not absolute over Part III.

Ninth Schedule

Parking a law there cannot defeat core rights.

Democracy Guard

Prevents majorities from hollowing out liberties.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Memory Aid

Mnemonic: “FRs ≠ For Revision” — Fundamental, Rights, not for Reduction by amendment.

Check power: What does Article 368 allow?
Spot limits: Part III rights are beyond curtailment.
Conclude: If an amendment cuts rights, it fails.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?	Article 368 power read with limits protecting Part III.	Amendments and Ninth Schedule use could hurt rights; Court rejects such curtailment.	Parliament cannot reduce or take away Fundamental Rights.

Glossary

Article 368: Procedure and power to amend the Constitution.
Ninth Schedule: A list intended to protect certain laws from court review.
Fundamental Rights: Core rights in Part III that protect liberty and equality.

FAQs

No, the focus was on amending power. It set limits on amending Fundamental Rights rather than evaluating every policy detail.

6:5 for the petitioners—one of the closest constitutional rulings.

Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled on the extent of amending power over Part III.

It prepared the ground for later doctrines on constitutional limits and protection of the Constitution’s core.

CASE_TITLE: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) • PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Fundamental Rights, Article 368, Amendment Power • SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Ninth Schedule, Article 13, Article 14, Article 19 • PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India • Slug: golaknath-v-state-of-punjab

Constitutional Law Fundamental Rights Amendments

```

Useful Links

Contact