Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case: Facts and Judgement

Students who are preparing for the national level or state-level Law entrance exams should know the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India. Read below the most famous Golaknath case which raised the significant gap in the functioning of the legislature.

Golaknath V. State of Punjab (1967)

Golaknath case was decided in 1967 by the Supreme Court of India. It has become a significant part of the Law student’s curriculum and is continuously asked in exams, be it Law entrance exams or internal College’s and University’s semester exams. Therefore, knowledge and understanding of Landmark Judgements by Supreme Court is necessary for students preparing to study law or looking to pursue legal profession. This is because reading the judgments will expose the student to the process, depth, and workings of the legal field.

There have been several landmark judgments pronounced around the framework of Indian Constitution. Due to its dynamic nature, the Indian Constitution has gone through many amendments, considering the need and shaping the course of constitutional governance in India. In the Golaknath case, the important question raised was if Parliament has the power to amend the Fundamental Rights provided in the Constitution of India?

The Constitution of India was adopted in the year 1950 and since then, it has been granting a significant authority to the Parliament to amend the Constitutional provisions under Article 368. The Parliament passed several acts and legislation, which faced challenges. Many legislations passed by the Government violated the Right to Property (Article 31) and other Fundamental Rights. Parliament then added Article 31A and Article 31B through the 1st Amendment (1951) and, further the 17th Amendment (1964), which placed certain laws beyond judicial scrutiny. Such amendments were challenged in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) and eventually it is now known as the milestone case, which lays down the scope of power of Parliament to amend the Indian Constitution. Also, in the later years, the amending powers of the Parliament were limited and subject to judicial review which will be studied here in the Golaknath case.

Golaknath case is important for students preparing for the national level or state level entrance tests such as Common Law Admission Test (CLAT 2026), AP LAWCET 2026, All India Law Entrance Test (AILET 2026), MHCET Law 2026, AIBE, SLAT, or TS LAWCET. Read on to understand the facts of the case, arguments raised and Supreme Court judgement. 

Facts of the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case

Below given are the important facts of the Golaknath case:

• The case arose when Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 was passed and it restricted the landholding by the owners and subsequently allowed the Government to procure the land for redistribution to needy and poor people.
• The family of Golaknath was based in Punjab and owned around 500 acres of the agricultural land. Due to the new land reform, Golaknath family was affected and challenged this Act in the court, stating that it violated their Right to Property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Part III of the Indian Constitution.
• Also, the Parliament passed the following amendments in view of preventing their land reforms or other acts from Judicial Review:
• In 1951, the First Constitutional Amendment was passed, which inserted Article 31A and Article 31B to protect the land reform laws.
• In another Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment, 1964, the parliament further added the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, preventing it from the Judicial Review.

• The Golaknath family filed a writ petition to challenge the constitutionality and basis of the 1st and 17th amendments.
• The major concern of the case and the argument raised was that the Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution.
• The key question raised was around the power of Parliament provided under Article 368.

Supreme Court Judgment on Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Following arguments were raised by the Petitioner, i.e., Golaknath’s Family:

• The petitioner said that the Fundamental Rights are the root of the Constitution, based on which the entire law is created and this should not be touched or altered by the Parliament.
• Also, the Parliament exercised its rights under Article 368 which allows alterations in the procedural laws only.
• The petitioners also raised that if Parliament tries to amend the Fundamental Rights which form the Basic Structure of the Constitution, then it will destroy the purpose of the Constitution as imagined by it framers.

The following were the arguments given by the Respondent, i.e., State of Punjab and Union of India.

• The respondent stated that Parliament has the power to alter and amend the parts of the Indian Constitution.
• Another argument was that it is essential to amend the Constitution to cater to the needs of society.

Supreme Court Judgment on the Arguments by Golakanath and the State:

The eleven-judge committee heard the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). It has been considered as one of the largest bench ever made to decide a case in the history of the Supreme Court. The case was ruled in favor of the petitioners and delivered a historic judgment by a majority of 6:5.

The following points were raised by the Supreme Court 11-judge bench:

- The Parliament has no power to alter the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution.

- It was held that the Fundamental Rights are inviolable and even the Parliament cannot make changes to it, even through a constitutional amendment.

- If Parliament is taking advantage of Article 368, then it must be noted that Parliament’s powers are not unlimited. The court observed that this article just provides the procedure to follow while amending the Constitution and does not give substantive powers.

- However, to avoid any chaos in politics, the Court applied the prospective doctrine, which enabled the decision will be valid for the subsequent amendments; however, the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth amendments will be valid even after being unconstitutional in nature.

- The court also held that the Fundamental Rights are the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and cannot be amended or altered.  

Through this case, it becomes clear how the Judiciary is determined to safeguard the rights of individuals. However, in the later Kesavananda Bharti judgement, the Doctrine of Basic Structure was established, which became the modification of Golaknath’s case. This case should be thoroughly read to understand how an individual can rise for their rights and fight against what exploits the common man. Students preparing for various Law entrance exams, including MHCET Law, CLAT, Telangana LAWCET, or more must read at least 10 to 20 landmark judgements to ace the exams.  

Also Read: 

• 5 famous Indian lawyers - Education, Salary, Popular Cases, Advice for Lawyers
• How to Become a Judge in India: Process, Eligibility, Complete Guide