I.C. Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (1967) – Easy Case Explainer
This page explains the Golak Nath case in simple, classroom-style English. We move step by step – facts, issues, rules, arguments, judgment, ratio, IRAC, mnemonic, and exam tips.
Quick Summary
I.C. Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case on the power of Parliament to change the Constitution. The big question was simple: Can Parliament amend the Constitution in a way that cuts down fundamental rights?
A special bench of 11 judges, led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, heard the case. The petitioners challenged land reform laws that had been protected by putting them into the Ninth Schedule through the 17th Constitutional Amendment.
The majority held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to take away or reduce fundamental rights. They treated a constitutional amendment as “law” under Article 13(2) and used the doctrine of prospective overruling so that older amendments stayed valid, but future amendments could not damage fundamental rights.
Watch Classroom-Style Explanation
Issues Before the Court
- Whether Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, or also gives power to amend the Constitution.
- Whether fundamental rights in Part III can be amended at all, especially when it reduces or takes away those rights.
- Whether the word “law” in Article 13(2) includes a constitutional amendment.
- Whether fundamental rights are permanent and beyond the reach of Parliament.
- Whether the 17th Constitutional Amendment violated Article 13(2) by putting certain land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule.
- Whether the earlier decisions in Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) were correct in allowing Parliament to amend fundamental rights.
Rules, Provisions & Background Cases
Key Constitutional Provisions
- Article 13(2) – The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. Any such law is void.
- Article 368 – Procedure for amendment of the Constitution.
- Part III – Fundamental Rights (heart of the case).
- Ninth Schedule – Laws placed here were earlier treated as protected from challenge under fundamental rights.
Important Earlier Judgments
- Sankari Prasad (1951) – Held that a constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13; Parliament can amend fundamental rights.
- Sajjan Singh (1965) – Repeated the same view. If the framers wanted to stop amendments to fundamental rights, they would have said so clearly.
Facts in Timeline Form
Arguments: Appellants vs Respondents
Appellants (Golak Nath & Others)
- Fundamental rights are permanent: Parliament cannot touch or reduce fundamental rights because they are the heart and soul of the Constitution.
- Amendment is also “law”: A constitutional amendment is still made by Parliament, so it is “law” under Article 13(2) and cannot take away rights.
- Article 368 is only procedure: It tells us how to amend, not what can be amended. The power must come from elsewhere.
- Earlier cases were wrong: Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh wrongly allowed Parliament to amend fundamental rights and should be overruled.
- 17th Amendment violates Article 13(2): By putting land laws into the Ninth Schedule and blocking fundamental rights review, it abridges rights and is void.
Respondents (State & Union of India)
- Article 368 gives power: It is not just a procedure; it contains the source of power to amend the Constitution, including Part III.
- Amendment is not “law”: The word “law” in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation, not to a constitutional amendment, which becomes part of the Constitution itself.
- Constitution must evolve: If fundamental rights cannot be amended at all, the Constitution becomes rigid and unworkable for changing social needs like land reform.
- Stare decisis: Many laws have been passed on the basis of Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. Overruling them would cause legal chaos.
- People act through Parliament: The will of the people is expressed through Parliament, so it should have wide power to change the Constitution, subject only to procedural limits.
Judgment & Majority View
The bench delivered a closely divided decision of 6:5. The majority, led by CJ K. Subba Rao, took a strong stand in favour of fundamental rights.
- Amendment = “law” under Article 13(2): A constitutional amendment is made by Parliament and therefore counts as “law”. If it takes away or abridges fundamental rights, it is void.
- No power to damage fundamental rights: Parliament cannot use Article 368 to reduce the content of fundamental rights in Part III.
- Article 368 is procedural only: It provides the procedure for amendment but not the source of power. Power must be traced to other provisions.
- Earlier cases overruled: Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled because they wrongly excluded constitutional amendments from Article 13.
However, the Court also recognised that simply striking down all past amendments would cause serious disruption. To avoid this, it adopted a new tool.
The majority decided that earlier amendments would remain valid, but from the date of this judgment onwards, Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights in a way that takes them away or cuts them down.
Ratio Decidendi (Core Legal Principle)
The ratio decidendi of the Golak Nath case can be broken into simple parts:
- A constitutional amendment is also “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2).
- Under Article 13(2), no “law” can take away or abridge fundamental rights, so a constitutional amendment that does this is invalid.
- Article 368 does not itself give power to damage fundamental rights; it only gives the procedure to amend the Constitution.
- Fundamental rights are placed beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power, at least so far as their essence and guaranteed character are concerned.
- This interpretation will apply prospectively. Past amendments remain valid but future amendments cannot reduce fundamental rights.
Why This Case Matters
- It strongly declared that fundamental rights are not ordinary rights; they are central to the Constitution and deserve special protection.
- It showed that the Court can use prospective overruling to protect stability while still correcting past legal mistakes.
- It made Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution a topic of serious debate, leading directly to the later development of the Basic Structure doctrine.
- It reminded everyone that the Constitution belongs not just to Parliament but also to the people, whose rights it protects.
- For students, it is an important link between early amendment cases and later decisions such as Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills.
Key Takeaways for Exams
- Bench: 11 judges, 6:5 majority, CJ K. Subba Rao.
- Core holding: Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights to take them away or abridge them.
- Article 13(2): Constitutional amendment is treated as “law” and must respect fundamental rights.
- Article 368: Only procedural, not a free licence to damage fundamental rights.
- Earlier cases: Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled.
- Doctrine used: Prospective overruling – first major use in India.
- Link to Basic Structure: Provided the foundation for the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
- Exam angle: Always connect Golak Nath → Article 13(2) → Prospective Overruling → Basic Structure.
Mnemonic & 3-Step Memory Hook
Use this quick memory tool to recall the Golak Nath case during exams.
Imagine Golak Nath standing at the gate of the Constitution with a shield labelled “Fundamental Rights”, blocking any harmful amendment.
Repeat once: “Amendment is law; law cannot cut rights.” This joins Article 13(2) with constitutional amendments in your mind.
Link the case to a simple chain: Sankari Prasad → Sajjan Singh → Golak Nath → Kesavananda. Think: “Old view, repeat, block, balance.”
IRAC Outline (Short Exam Answer)
Whether Parliament, using Article 368, has the power to amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights in Part III, and whether a constitutional amendment is “law” under Article 13(2).
Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or abridges fundamental rights. Any such law is void. Article 368 gives the procedure for constitutional amendments. Earlier cases, Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, had held that constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13.
The Court treated a constitutional amendment as a form of “law” because it is made by Parliament. Therefore, like any other law, it must respect Article 13(2) and cannot damage fundamental rights. Since the 17th Amendment and related measures tried to protect land reform laws that affected property rights, they were seen as touching fundamental rights. To avoid instability, the Court used prospective overruling and did not strike down past amendments.
The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. Constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13(2) and must respect fundamental rights. Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled, but using prospective overruling, earlier amendments were kept valid while future amendments were restricted.
Glossary of Important Terms
- Fundamental Rights
- Basic rights given in Part III of the Constitution, such as equality, freedom, and life, which protect individuals from State action.
- Constitutional Amendment
- A formal change in the text of the Constitution, done under Article 368.
- Article 13(2)
- Provision that stops the State from making any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. Such law is void.
- Prospective Overruling
- A doctrine where a new interpretation of law applies only to the future and does not disturb past transactions and decisions.
- Ninth Schedule
- A part of the Constitution where certain laws are placed to give them special protection from challenge under fundamental rights (subject to later case law).
- Basic Structure
- The essential features of the Constitution that cannot be destroyed by amendment (fully developed later in Kesavananda Bharati).
FAQs – Student Doubts Answered
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now