Golaknath v State of Punjab was a 1967 decision of the Supreme Court of India holding, by a six to five majority, that Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights, because a constitutional amendment counted as law for this purpose and no law could abridge or take away a fundamental right. The ruling reversed the Court's own earlier position that had allowed such amendments. Parliament responded with the Twenty Fourth Amendment of 1971, which asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court itself effectively superseded Golaknath in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973), holding that Parliament could amend fundamental rights but could not alter the Constitution's basic structure.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingThe Supreme Court held, by a six to five majority, that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution through the amending procedure in Article 368, because a constitutional amendment counted as law for the purposes of Article 13. 1 Current StatusOverruled in 1973 by Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, which held that Parliament may amend Part III of the Constitution but may not alter its basic structure. 1 Case Status
Case Status (category)Overruled (in whole or part) 1 FAQs
What did Golaknath v State of Punjab decide about amending fundamental rights?
Parliament could not amend Part III fundamental rights, by a six to five majority.
The Supreme Court of India held in 1967, by a six to five majority, that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution through the amending procedure in Article 368, because a constitutional amendment counted as law for the purposes of Article 13. The ruling reversed the Court's own earlier position that had allowed such amendments.
Is Golaknath still good law?
No, it was overruled in 1973 by Kesavananda Bharati.
No. Parliament responded with the Twenty Fourth Amendment of 1971, and the Court overruled Golaknath in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973), holding that Parliament may amend Part III of the Constitution but may not alter its basic structure.
Connections
Associated With
Golaknath's ruling that fundamental rights could not be amended is the direct doctrinal precursor to the Basic Structure Doctrine later articulated in Kesavananda Bharati.
Decided By
Decided by the Supreme Court of India, 1967.
In Legal System
A ruling of the Indian Supreme Court under the Indian Constitution.
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Sources
1. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (Wikipedia)
Wikimedia FoundationInfobox: date decided
27 February 1967
Significance section
This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights. In 1973, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala held that the Parliament under the Indian Constitution is not supreme, in that it cannot change the basic structure of the constitution.
Infobox: overruled
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
View the Source I. C. Golaknath and Others v. State of Punjab and Anothers (Wikipedia)
In Group: Judicial Review and Basic Structure Cases, Introduction, sentences 1-2Quote, In Group: Judicial Review and Basic Structure Cases, Introduction, sentences 1-2
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.