Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)

Quick Summary

By a 6:5 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend or curtail Fundamental Rights. Earlier views in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled. The case pushed Indian law towards the basic structure idea later crystallised in Kesavananda Bharati.

Issues

• Does Article 368 allow Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights in Part III?
• Are constitutional amendments “law” under Article 13(2) and thus limited by Fundamental Rights?

Rules

• Article 368 — Procedure and power to amend the Constitution.
• Article 13(2) — The State shall not make any law that abridges Fundamental Rights.
• Holding — Amendments that affect Fundamental Rights are barred.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment (Held)

Majority (6:5) held that Parliament has no power to amend Fundamental Rights. Amendments are “law” for Article 13(2). Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad were overruled.

The Court feared unchecked amendments could turn a democracy into an autocracy. Rights were placed beyond Parliament’s reach to protect liberty.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Article 13(2) bars the State from making “law” that abridges rights; “law” includes amendments.
2. Article 368 provides procedure but not unlimited power to damage Part III.
3. To preserve democracy, Fundamental Rights are beyond amendment.

Why It Matters

• Set the stage for the basic structure doctrine.
• Shielded rights from majoritarian overreach.
• Rebalanced power between Parliament and the Constitution.

Key Takeaways

• No curtailment of Part III via Article 368.
• Earlier pro-amendment precedents overruled.
• Foreshadowed Kesavananda Bharati and basic structure.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “HANDS OFF PART III”

1. Identify: Does the amendment touch Fundamental Rights?
2. Apply: Article 13(2) + limited Article 368 power.
3. Conclude: If rights are cut—invalid (per Golaknath).

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can Parliament amend/cut Fundamental Rights using Article 368?

Rule: Article 13(2) prohibits laws abridging rights; amendments are “law”.

Application: Frequent use of Article 368 risked diluting rights; thus, amendments reducing rights are barred.

Conclusion: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights (per 1967 ruling).

Glossary

Ninth Schedule

A list to protect laws from rights review (as originally intended).

Basic Structure

Core features of the Constitution that cannot be damaged by amendment.

Overrule

When a later case declares an earlier precedent wrong in law.

FAQs

Related Cases