Golak Nath Case: Amendability of Fundamental Rights

The Golak Nath case is the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that held Parliament cannot abridge or take away any Fundamental Right through a constitutional amendment under Article 368, a position the Court itself reversed six years later. The case is a pivotal link in the story of how India's higher judiciary came to police the outer limits of Parliament's amending power, eventually producing the basic structure doctrine.

The Position Before Golak Nath

Before 1967, the Supreme Court had twice upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights without restriction. In the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and again in the Sajjan Singh case (1964), the Court held that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13. Since Article 13 only bars the State from making a "law" that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, a constitutional amendment—being of a different, constituent character—fell outside that bar. On this reasoning, Parliament could amend any part of Part III, including the Fundamental Rights, through the ordinary Article 368 process.

The Golak Nath Case (1967)

In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), this settled position was reversed. The case arose from a challenge to the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964), which had inserted certain state land-reform laws into the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from judicial scrutiny on the ground that they violated Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights occupy a "transcendental and immutable" position in the constitutional scheme, and that Parliament therefore has no power to abridge or take away any of these rights. Crucially, the Court also held that a constitutional amendment act is itself "law" within the meaning of Article 13, and would consequently be void if it violated any Fundamental Right. This directly overturned the reasoning of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, and effectively froze Part III against any amendment, however necessary the amendment might otherwise appear.

Parliament's Response: The 24th Amendment Act (1971)

Parliament reacted to the Golak Nath verdict by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971), which amended both Article 13 and Article 368. The amendment declared that Parliament does have the power to abridge or take away any Fundamental Right by way of a constitutional amendment under Article 368, and that such an amendment would not be treated as "law" for the purposes of Article 13. The 24th Amendment also made it obligatory for the President to give assent to a Constitution Amendment Bill once it had been duly passed by both Houses, removing any discretion the President may have had at that stage.

From Golak Nath to Basic Structure: Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

The validity of the 24th Amendment itself came up for examination before a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). A Full Bench of 13 judges overruled the Golak Nath judgment and upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act, affirming that Parliament is indeed empowered to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights through the amending process. At the same time, however, the Court laid down an entirely new limitation: the doctrine of the "basic structure" (or "basic features") of the Constitution. It ruled that the constituent power under Article 368 does not extend to altering the basic structure of the Constitution—meaning Parliament cannot use its amending power to abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that itself forms part of the basic structure. Among the basic features identified across this line of cases are the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, the federal system, judicial review, and parliamentary government. The Kesavananda ruling thus replaced Golak Nath's blanket immunity for Fundamental Rights with a narrower, judicially defined limit on amendability.

Reinforcing the Doctrine: Minerva Mills and Waman Rao

Parliament again pushed back against the judicially evolved basic structure doctrine through the 42nd Amendment Act (1976), which amended Article 368 to declare that there was no limitation whatsoever on Parliament's constituent power, and that no amendment could be questioned in any court on any ground, including violation of Fundamental Rights. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down these clauses—inserted as Article 368(4) and (5)—holding that they excluded judicial review, itself a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that since the Constitution confers only a limited amending power on Parliament, Parliament cannot use that limited power to enlarge itself into an unlimited power capable of destroying the Constitution's basic features. In the Waman Rao case (1980), the Court further clarified that the basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments enacted on or after 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. A related application of this principle is that Ninth Schedule insertions made on or after that date are not given blanket protection from judicial review and must be tested against the basic structure.

Article 368: The Amendment Procedure

Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution by way of addition, variation, or repeal, following a specific procedure. An amendment Bill can be introduced in either House, by a minister or a private member, without prior presidential permission, and must be passed separately by each House by a special majority—a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. There is no provision for a joint sitting in case of disagreement between the Houses. Where the amendment affects specified federal provisions, it additionally requires ratification by the legislatures of not less than half the states, by a simple majority, before it is presented to the President. Since the 24th Amendment, presidential assent to a duly passed Bill is obligatory.

Method	Majority required	Applies to
Simple majority	Majority of members present and voting (outside Article 368)	Formation/boundaries of states, Second Schedule matters, quorum, salaries of MPs, citizenship, delimitation, Union territories, Fifth/Sixth Schedule
Special majority	Total membership majority + two-thirds present and voting, in each House	Most provisions, including Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Special majority + state ratification	As above, plus ratification by not less than half the state legislatures	Federal provisions: President's election, Union and state executive powers, Supreme Court and High Courts, Seventh Schedule lists, state representation in Parliament, and Article 368 itself

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) held a constitutional amendment is "law" under Article 13 and cannot abridge Fundamental Rights.
The 24th Amendment Act (1971) reversed this by amending Articles 13 and 368.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) overruled Golak Nath and introduced the basic structure doctrine.
Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Article 368(4)–(5) inserted by the 42nd Amendment for excluding judicial review.

Mains

Trace the judicial evolution from Shankari Prasad through Golak Nath to Kesavananda Bharati on the amendability of Fundamental Rights.
Examine how the basic structure doctrine balances Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 with the supremacy of the Constitution.
Discuss judicial review as a basic feature, with reference to Minerva Mills and Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu (1993).

FAQ

What did the Golak Nath case decide? It held that Fundamental Rights hold a transcendental, immutable position and that Parliament cannot abridge or take them away by constitutional amendment, since such an amendment is itself "law" under Article 13.

Is the Golak Nath judgment still valid law? No. It was overruled by the 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which held Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but not the Constitution's basic structure.

What was the 24th Amendment Act's role? It was Parliament's direct response to Golak Nath—amending Articles 13 and 368 to affirm Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, and its validity was later upheld in Kesavananda Bharati.

How does the basic structure doctrine differ from the Golak Nath position? Golak Nath placed all Fundamental Rights beyond amendment; the basic structure doctrine instead protects only those features—which may include certain rights—that form part of the Constitution's basic structure, while leaving the rest of Part III amendable.

What role did Minerva Mills play? It struck down the 42nd Amendment's insertion of Article 368(4)–(5), which had tried to remove all limits on Parliament's amending power, holding that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves basic features.

Quick Revision

Shankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1964): amendment act is not "law" under Article 13.
Golak Nath (1967): reversed this; amendment act is "law"; Fundamental Rights unamendable.
24th Amendment Act (1971): restored Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights; made presidential assent obligatory.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973): overruled Golak Nath; introduced basic structure doctrine.
42nd Amendment Act (1976): tried to remove all limits on amending power via Article 368(4)-(5).
Minerva Mills (1980): struck down Article 368(4)-(5); judicial review is a basic feature.
Waman Rao (1980): basic structure doctrine applies to amendments from 24 April 1973 onward.

Sources

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.

Golak Nath Case and Amendability of Fundamental Rights

At a glance

Timeline