Golak Nath Case (1967)

Parliament abridge rights was the central question the Supreme Court confronted in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) — could Parliament, using its constitutional amending power under Article 368, take away or narrow the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III? The Court's answer reversed its own earlier position and set off a chain of events that reshaped the relationship between Parliament and the Constitution.

Background: Article 13 and the Amending Power

Article 13(2) provides that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III, and that any law made in contravention of this clause is void to that extent. The recurring constitutional question was whether a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 counted as "law" for the purposes of Article 13 — because if it did, an amendment curtailing Fundamental Rights would itself be void.

The seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which had inserted certain State land-reform laws into the Ninth Schedule (thereby shielding them from judicial review on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights), was the specific provision challenged in Golak Nath.

The Earlier Position: Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh

In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court had upheld the First Amendment, which curtailed the right to property, ruling that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights, and that a constitutional amendment act is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13. This position — separating constituent power (used to amend the Constitution) from ordinary legislative power (used to make laws) — was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964).

The Golak Nath Ruling

In Golak Nath (1967), an eleven-judge bench reversed this settled position. The Court held that Fundamental Rights occupy a "transcendental and immutable" position, and that Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of these rights. Crucially, it ruled that a constitutional amendment act is also "law" within the meaning of Article 13, and would therefore be void if it violated a Fundamental Right.

Having reached this conclusion, the Court then had to deal with the fact that several earlier constitutional amendments — including the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments — had already curtailed Fundamental Rights and had been relied upon for years. To avoid unsettling these past transactions, the Court applied the American doctrine of prospective overruling, used in India for the first time in this case. Under this doctrine, the ruling would operate only prospectively: Parliament would have no power, from the date of the judgment onward, to amend Part III so as to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, but the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments would continue to be valid.

Parliament's Response: The 24th Amendment

Parliament reacted to Golak Nath by enacting the 24th Amendment Act, 1971. This amendment altered both Article 13 and Article 368: it inserted a new clause (3) into Article 368 declaring that nothing in Article 13 would apply to any amendment made under Article 368, and it added a new clause to Article 13 stating that nothing in that article would apply to constitutional amendments. In effect, Parliament asserted that it did have the power to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights through the constitutional amendment process.

Later Developments: Kesavananda Bharati

The Golak Nath ruling itself did not survive for long. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a thirteen-judge bench overruled Golak Nath, upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment, and confirmed that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights through Article 368. At the same time, the Court laid down the doctrine of the "basic structure" of the Constitution — holding that while Parliament's amending power is wide, it cannot be used to alter the basic structure or basic features of the Constitution. This meant Parliament could no longer abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms part of the Constitution's basic structure, even though the Golak Nath rule itself no longer applied.

Notably, even though Golak Nath's central holding was overruled, its innovation of prospective overruling survived and continued to be applied in later cases, including the Mandal case (1992) and the Karunakar case (1993).

Evolution of the Amendment-versus-Fundamental-Rights Question

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Golak Nath (1967) overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964).
• Golak Nath introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling in India for the first time.
• Golak Nath was itself overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which introduced the basic structure doctrine.
• The 24th Amendment Act, 1971 was Parliament's direct response to Golak Nath, amending both Articles 13 and 368.

Mains

• The sequence Shankari Prasad → Sajjan Singh → Golak Nath → 24th Amendment → Kesavananda Bharati traces the evolving judicial and parliamentary contest over the limits of the amending power, and is central to any discussion of the basic structure doctrine and the checks-and-balances relationship between the judiciary and the legislature.

FAQ

Q1. What did the Supreme Court hold in the Golak Nath case (1967)? It held that Fundamental Rights have a transcendental position that Parliament cannot abridge, and that a constitutional amendment is "law" under Article 13 and therefore void if it violates Part III.

Q2. What is the doctrine of prospective overruling, and where did it originate in Indian law? It is a doctrine, borrowed from American law, under which a court's new ruling applies only to future transactions and not retrospectively. It was applied in India for the first time in the Golak Nath case (1967).

Q3. How did Parliament respond to the Golak Nath verdict? Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, amending Articles 13 and 368 to assert that constitutional amendments are not "law" under Article 13 and that Parliament's constituent power to amend Part III is unlimited.

Q4. Which case overruled Golak Nath? Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which upheld the 24th Amendment but introduced the basic structure doctrine as a limit on the amending power.

Q5. Which cases did Golak Nath itself overrule? It overruled Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964).

Quick Revision

• Golak Nath (1967): 11-judge bench; challenge to the 17th Amendment (Ninth Schedule insertions).
• Held: constitutional amendments are "law" under Article 13(2); Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged by Parliament.
• Applied doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in India.
• Overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964).
• Parliament's response: 24th Amendment Act, 1971 — amended Articles 13 and 368.
• Golak Nath itself overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which introduced the basic structure doctrine.

Sources

• The Constitution of India — Articles 13 and 368, legislative.gov.in
• Supreme Court of India — judgment records

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.