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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1 |
| I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738336 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab Context triple: [Article 368, subjectOf, I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab]
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
-
C.
Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
-
D.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain is a landmark 1975 Indian Supreme Court case that scrutinized the validity of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election and significantly shaped constitutional limits on parliamentary power.
-
E.
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
-
C.
Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
-
D.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain is a landmark 1975 Indian Supreme Court case that scrutinized the validity of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election and significantly shaped constitutional limits on parliamentary power.
-
E.
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
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 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab Description of subject: 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.
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