Case record
Country
India
Court
Supreme Court of India
Year
1967
Areas of Law
Constitutional law, Fundamental rights, Amending power
Citation
I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court of India (1967)
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643) was a historic 11-judge constitutional decision that held Parliament had no power to abridge or take away through Constitutional Amendments. The ruling created a major constitutional confrontation between the Judiciary and Parliament.
Henry and William Golaknath owned over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the state government declared that the brothers could retain only 30 acres each, classifying the remaining land as surplus. The family challenged the Act and the 17th Constitutional Amendment (which placed land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule) as a violation of their fundamental right to property under (1)(f).
Scope of Parliament's power to amend
Punjab land registry records, statutory land ceiling notices, constituent assembly debates on and , and judgments in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh.
Petitioners argued that Constitutional Amendments under fall under the definition of 'law' in (2), making any amendment infringing Part III void. The State argued confers sovereign, unrestricted constituent power superior to ordinary law.
By a narrow 6:5 majority, the Supreme Court held that Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge .
Chief Justice K. Subba Rao reasoned that occupy a 'transcendental' position. merely lays down the procedure for amendment; actual amending power derives from ordinary legislative powers under List I, making constitutional amendments subject to (2) prohibitions.
Temporarily barred all parliamentary amendments to (until overruled by Kesavananda Bharati in 1973) and introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling.
Temporarily barred all parliamentary amendments to (until overruled by Kesavananda Bharati in 1973) and introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling.
Beyond borders
India · United States
Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?
India and the United States both have codified constitutions with , but they approach amendments very differently. Golaknath (1967) temporarily prohibited fundamental rights amendments in India, while the U.S. has strong amendment traditions.
U.S. has strong constitutional amendment tradition. Why preferable to others: UK lacks codified constitution; France, China, Russia have different traditions.
Both legal orders confronted one question: how to balance with . In India, the Court had to decide whether Parliament could amend fundamental rights. In the U.S., amendments are beyond .
| Topic | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Issue | Can Parliament amend fundamental rights? | Can amendments violate fundamental rights? |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 13, 368 | Article V; Supremacy Clause |
| Leading Case | I.C. Golaknath (1967) | Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) |
| Court's Reasoning | Amendments are "law" under Article 13 | Amendments are beyond judicial review |
| Outcome | Temporarily prohibited rights amendments | Established amendment finality |
Both systems recognize that constitutions can be amended, and both courts have issued rulings to define the amendment process. In both countries, the judiciary has played a role in constitutional interpretation.
The paths diverge dramatically. In India, Golaknath held that constitutional amendments are "law" under and cannot abridge , but this was later modified by Kesavananda. The Indian approach is rights-protective and judicially supervised. In the U.S., by contrast, once an amendment is ratified, it is beyond . The U.S. approach is more democratic but less rights-protective. The result is a more rights-protective approach in India and a more democratic one in the U.S.
The practical lesson is that constitutional amendments are not just about procedure—they are about values. In India, the rights-protective approach safeguards . In the U.S., the democratic approach trusts the people. For citizens, both systems provide constitutional stability.
Golaknath and U.S. amendment cases both gave judges the power to define constitutional change, but they approached the problem differently. One protects rights; the other trusts democracy. Together, they show that amendments are not just about text—they are about identity.
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll