Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is one of the most influential constitutional law cases in Indian history. It directly addressed the limits of Par

 Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Parliament’s Power to Amend Fundamental Rights

⚖️ Citation

Golaknath v. State of Punjab
AIR 1967 SC 1643 | 1967 SCR (2) 762
Bench Strength: 11 Judges
Judgment Date: 27 February 1967

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case is one of the most important and historic decisions of the Supreme Court of India. It played a major role in shaping the balance of power between Parliament and the Judiciary. This case dealt with a very crucial question — can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? The answer to this question changed the course of Indian constitutional history.

The Supreme Court, in this case, decided by a close 6:5 majority that Parliament does not have the power to amend or take away Fundamental Rights. This meant that the rights of citizens were placed above the amending power of Parliament. The judgment was celebrated by many as a victory for individual rights and democracy, but it also faced criticism from those who believed it made the Constitution too rigid and limited Parliament’s ability to bring social and economic reforms.

The Golaknath case was not just about one family’s land; it became a battle between the ideals of individual liberty and collective social justice. It also set the stage for future constitutional amendments and the famous Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), where the Supreme Court developed the Basic Structure Doctrine — a principle that still protects the core values of the Indian Constitution today.

---

Point	Details
Case Name	Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Year of Judgment	27 February 1967
Bench Strength	11 Judges (6:5 Majority)
Chief Justice	Justice K. Subba Rao
Petitioners	Golaknath Family of Jalandhar, Punjab
Respondent	State of Punjab
Main Issue	Can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
Articles Involved	Articles 13, 19, 31, and 368 of the Constitution
Majority Decision	Parliament cannot amend or abridge Fundamental Rights; Article 13 applies to constitutional amendments.
Minority View	Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
Doctrine Introduced	Doctrine of Prospective Overruling (for the first time in India)
Judgment Ratio	6 Judges in favor of Golaknath family, 5 against
Impact on Constitution	Limited Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights and strengthened Judicial Review.
Later Developments	Led to 24th and 25th Amendments and the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
Significance	Established Constitutional Supremacy over Parliamentary Supremacy and protected citizens’ Fundamental Rights.

Table: Overall highlights of the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case – Key facts, judgment, and constitutional impact.

---

Background of the Case

After India gained independence, the government’s main focus was to remove inequality, poverty, and the old zamindari (landlord) system. Land reforms became an important step toward achieving social and economic equality. Under these reforms, the government took surplus land from rich landlords and distributed it among landless farmers.

However, many wealthy landowners challenged these laws in courts, arguing that they violated their Right to Property, which was guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the government argued that it had to pass such laws to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy, especially Article 39(b) and 39(c), which promote equal distribution of resources and prevent concentration of wealth.

The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, was one such law that limited the amount of land a person could own. The Golaknath family of Jalandhar, Punjab, owned around 500 acres of land, much more than the limit allowed by the Act. The government took away part of their land and gave it to smaller farmers. The family challenged this in court, saying their Fundamental Right to property had been violated.

The case finally reached the Supreme Court of India, where the main question was not only about land but also about the powers of Parliament — whether it could amend or change Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.

Facts of the Case

The case began when the Golaknath family filed a petition against the Punjab government. They challenged the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, and claimed that it violated their Fundamental Rights to Property (Articles 19 and 31), Equality (Article 14), and Freedom to practice occupation (Article 19(1)(g)).

They also argued that the earlier constitutional amendments — such as the First Amendment (1951), Fourth Amendment (1955), and Seventeenth Amendment (1964) — which added many land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, were unconstitutional because they took away Fundamental Rights.

1. The Golaknath family owned about 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab.

2. The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, imposed restrictions on land ownership, allowing individuals to keep only a limited amount of land. The rest had to be given to the government for redistribution to landless farmers.

3. The Golaknath family challenged this law, claiming it violated their Fundamental Rights to Property (Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31), Equality (Article 14), and Freedom to carry on occupation (Article 19(1)(g)).

4. Their case reached the Supreme Court, where they argued that previous amendments — such as the First Amendment (1951), Fourth Amendment (1955), and Seventeenth Amendment (1964) — which had added certain land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, were unconstitutional because they took away or curtailed Fundamental Rights.

The Golaknath family requested the Supreme Court to declare that Parliament did not have the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 of the Constitution.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

To understand the case, a few key Articles of the Constitution are important:

• Article 13(2) – The State cannot make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. Any such law shall be void.

• Article 32 – Gives the Supreme Court the power to enforce Fundamental Rights.

• Article 368 – Provides the procedure for amending the Constitution.

• Articles 19 and 31 – Protect the Right to Property (before it was removed by the 44th Amendment).

• Article 39(b) & (c) – Directive Principles encouraging equal distribution of wealth and prevention of economic concentration.

---

Constitutional Question Before the Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court in this case was very simple but extremely significant. The question was:

The Supreme Court had to decide three main questions:

1. Does Parliament have the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?

2. Is a constitutional amendment “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2)?

3. Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, or are there limitations to its power?

If Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, it could even remove citizens’ rights altogether. But if it did not have that power, then certain parts of the Constitution — especially Fundamental Rights — would remain untouched forever. The answer to this question was going to define the future of India’s democracy.

---

Arguments by the Petitioners (Golaknath Family)

The Golaknath family, represented by advocate H. M. Seervai, made several strong arguments before the Supreme Court:

1. Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights - The petitioners argued that Fundamental Rights are “transcendental” and beyond the reach of Parliament. They claimed that Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that abridges Fundamental Rights, and the term “law” includes constitutional amendments as well.

2. Amendment = Law under Article 13 - They said that an amendment is also a form of law-making, and hence it falls within the meaning of “law” under Article 13(2). Therefore, any amendment that takes away Fundamental Rights is invalid.

3. Article 368 provides only a procedure, not power - The petitioners argued that Article 368 only describes the procedure for amending the Constitution but does not give Parliament substantive power to amend Fundamental Rights.

4. Fundamental Rights are the soul of the Constitution - They maintained that these rights are the foundation of democracy and cannot be modified by Parliament.

5. Constitutional Supremacy over Parliamentary Supremacy - They emphasized that in India, the Constitution is supreme — not Parliament. Hence, Parliament must act within the limits of the Constitution and cannot change its essential character.

In short, the petitioners believed that Fundamental Rights were beyond the reach of Parliament and must always remain protected from any political majority.

---

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Punjab and the Union Government)

The government and the State of Punjab, represented by the Attorney General, presented the following arguments:

1. Parliament has full power to amend any part of the Constitution - The government argued that Article 368 gives Parliament both the power and the procedure to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

2. Amendment is not “law” under Article 13 - They claimed that constitutional amendments are not ordinary laws, so Article 13(2) does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.

3. Constitution is flexible enough to adapt - The government argued that the framers of the Constitution wanted it to be a living document that could evolve with time. Therefore, Parliament should have the authority to amend any part as needed for social and economic progress.

4. Social justice and equality are essential - The State emphasized that without amending property rights, it would be impossible to achieve the goals set out in the Directive Principles of State Policy — such as reducing inequality and ensuring fair distribution of wealth.

5. Previous Judgments Supported Parliament’s Power  - The government relied on earlier cases such as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), where the Supreme Court had upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.

The government also relied on earlier Supreme Court cases — Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) — in which the Court had already ruled that Parliament had the power to amend Fundamental Rights.

---

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in 1967 by a majority of 6:5 — one of the narrowest decisions in history. The Court ruled in favor of the Golaknath family and held that Parliament does not have the power to amend Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in 1967 by a narrow 6:5 majority. The Court’s decision was deeply divided but historic.

Majority View (6 Judges)

The majority, led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, ruled in favor of the Golaknath family and held:

1. Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights - The majority held that Fundamental Rights are sacred and permanent. They cannot be abridged, taken away, or amended by Parliament.

2. Amendment is “law” under Article 13 - The Court interpreted the word “law” in Article 13(2) broadly, including constitutional amendments within its scope. Therefore, any amendment that curtails Fundamental Rights would be void.

3. Article 368 only provides the procedure - The Court clarified that Article 368 lays down only the procedure for amending the Constitution, not the power itself.

4. Parliament’s powers are limited - India’s Parliament is not supreme like the British Parliament. It is bound by the Constitution and cannot change its basic features, including Fundamental Rights.

5. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - For the first time in Indian law, the Court used the doctrine of “Prospective Overruling”, meaning that this judgment would not affect past amendments but would apply only to future ones.

The minority of 5 judges disagreed with the majority view. They believed that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. According to them:

• An amendment made under Article 368 is not an ordinary “law,” so Article 13(2) does not apply.

• The framers of the Constitution clearly gave Parliament wide powers to amend the Constitution when necessary.

• The Constitution must be flexible to adapt to social and economic changes.

The minority view emphasized that denying Parliament such powers would make the Constitution too rigid and block social progress.

---

Significance of the Judgment

The Golaknath case had a huge impact on Indian constitutional law. It was the first time that the Supreme Court restricted Parliament’s amending power. The judgment gave enormous strength to Fundamental Rights and established the supremacy of the judiciary in protecting them.

The case also introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling in India, borrowed from American law. This ensured that past amendments remained valid, but future amendments would be limited.

Most importantly, the judgment created a major clash between Parliament and the Judiciary. The government believed that the Court had made the Constitution too rigid and had placed individual rights above social justice. This conflict ultimately led to the 24th Amendment (1971), which restored Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

---

Criticism of the Judgment

The Golaknath judgment was widely debated and criticized for several reasons. Many felt that the Court had gone too far in limiting Parliament’s powers. Some of the main criticisms were:

• It made the Constitution too rigid, preventing Parliament from making important social reforms like land redistribution.

• The judgment was seen as an example of judicial overreach, where judges imposed their own views instead of respecting Parliament’s authority.

• It gave more importance to individual property rights while ignoring the government’s duty to achieve social and economic equality.

• It increased tensions between the legislature and the judiciary, leading to a constitutional crisis.

However, supporters argued that the judgment protected the core spirit of democracy by preventing the misuse of power by a parliamentary majority.

---

Aftermath of the Case

The Golaknath case changed the relationship between Parliament and the Supreme Court forever. The government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, strongly disagreed with the decision. It believed that the judgment had made it impossible to pass laws for social welfare and equality.

In response, Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, which made it clear that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It also declared that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not a “law” under Article 13.

Soon after, the 25th Amendment (1971) and 42nd Amendment (1976) further expanded Parliament’s powers and reduced judicial interference.

But the debate did not end there. The issue again reached the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where the Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution but introduced a new concept — the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine stated that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or destroy its essential features.

---

Importance of the Golaknath Case

The Golaknath case is one of the cornerstones of India’s constitutional development. Its importance can be understood in several ways:

• It strengthened the concept of Fundamental Rights by making them immune from amendment.

• It reinforced judicial review and ensured that the Supreme Court remained the guardian of the Constitution.

• It laid the foundation for the Basic Structure Doctrine, which continues to protect the Constitution today.

• It highlighted the ongoing tension between individual liberty and social justice — a theme that continues in Indian law and politics.

The case also made people realize the importance of maintaining a balance between Parliament’s authority and the judiciary’s independence.

---

Conclusion

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case is a landmark in Indian constitutional history. It was the first case to seriously limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and emphasized that Fundamental Rights are permanent and cannot be taken away.

Although later constitutional amendments and the Kesavananda Bharati Case modified its effect, the spirit of Golaknath continues to inspire the protection of citizens’ rights. It established that even the highest law-making body — Parliament — must respect the Constitution’s core values and cannot use its power to destroy them.

The judgment taught an important lesson in democracy — that power must always be balanced by principles. While Parliament represents the will of the people, the Constitution represents the soul of the nation. The Golaknath case ensured that no temporary majority could destroy that soul.

In simple terms, the case became the foundation for all future constitutional debates about amending power, judicial review, and the protection of Fundamental Rights. It remains a timeless reminder that in India, the Constitution — not Parliament — is supreme.