I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
E547312
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.
Observed surface forms (1)
| Surface form | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1 |
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Indian Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark judgment ⓘ |
| appliedDoctrine | prospective overruling ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional amendments
ⓘ
fundamental rights ⓘ |
| benchStrength | 11-judge bench ⓘ |
| bindingNature | binding precedent on all Indian courts at the time of decision ⓘ |
| category |
Indian case law on constitutional amendments
ⓘ
Supreme Court of India landmark decisions ⓘ |
| citation |
(1967) 2 SCR 762
ⓘ
AIR 1967 SC 1643 ⓘ |
| constitutionalContext | post-independence land reform and property rights disputes ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article 13 of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
Article 368 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Part III of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| courtOpinionType | majority opinion with strong dissents ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1967-02-27 ⓘ |
| decisionYear | 1967 ⓘ |
| dissentingJudges | 5 ⓘ |
| effectOnEarlierAmendments | did not invalidate previous constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights ⓘ |
| geographicalContext | State of Punjab NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| held |
Article 368 provides only the procedure for amendment and not the power to amend
ⓘ
Parliament has no power to amend Part III fundamental rights of the Constitution ⓘ amendments to the Constitution are 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) ⓘ any constitutional amendment abridging or taking away fundamental rights is void under Article 13(2) ⓘ |
| historicalSignificance |
one of the earliest major constraints on Parliament's amending power in India
ⓘ
paved the way for later articulation of the basic structure doctrine ⓘ |
| impact | temporarily curtailed Parliament's power to amend the Constitution ⓘ |
| introducedDoctrine | prospective overruling in Indian constitutional law ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfJudgment | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution
ⓘ
whether fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament ⓘ |
| majorityJudges | 6 ⓘ |
| overruledPrecedent |
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | I.C. Golaknath NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | State of Punjab NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
amendability of fundamental rights
ⓘ
relationship between Parliament's constituent power and fundamental rights ⓘ validity of certain Punjab land reform laws vis-à-vis fundamental rights ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment |
position further modified by Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
ⓘ
position modified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment ⓘ |
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Golaknath v. State of Punjab