- CJI K. Subba RaoFavored (Majority - Authored)
- Justice J.C. ShahFavored (Majority)
- Justice S.M. SikriFavored (Majority)
- Justice J.R. ShelatFavored (Majority)
- Justice V. BhargavaFavored (Majority)
- Justice G.K. MitterFavored (Majority)
- Justice K.N. WanchooOpposed (Dissent)
- Justice R.S. BachawatOpposed (Dissent)
- Justice V. RamaswamiOpposed (Dissent)
- Justice J.M. MudholkarOpposed (Dissent)
- Justice A.K. SarkarOpposed (Dissent)
- Constitution of India (Article 13(2), 19(1)(f), 31, 31A, 31B, 368)
- Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951
- Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955
- Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964
- Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953
- Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) (Overruled)
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) (Overruled)
In this watershed case, the Golaknath family challenged the inclusion of the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. This inclusion prevented them from challenging the Punjab Act even if it violated their Fundamental Right to property (then under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31).
The central question was whether Parliament had the power to amend Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The petitioners urged the Court to reconsider and overrule its previous decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, which had upheld this power.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Golaknath & Others)
- Fundamental Rights are primordial, transcendental, and inviolable, placed beyond the reach of Parliament's amending power.
- Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power itself. The power to amend comes from residual legislative powers, making amendments "law" under Article 13(2).
- Therefore, any amendment that abridges or takes away Fundamental Rights is void under Article 13(2).
- Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were wrongly decided.
Respondent's Case (State of Punjab & UOI)
- Article 368 contains both the power and procedure for amendment; it represents the constituent power of Parliament.
- This constituent power is distinct from ordinary legislative power and is not limited by Article 13(2).
- Fundamental Rights are part of the Constitution and thus subject to amendment like any other provision.
- Overruling previous decisions would cause chaos and invalidate necessary socio-economic reforms.
Case Progression Timeline
Shankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh
Supreme Court upholds Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1951 & 196417th Amendment Passed
Parliament adds more land reform acts, including the Punjab Act affecting Golaknath family, to the 9th Schedule.
June 20, 1964Writ Petitions Filed
Golaknath family challenges the Punjab Act and the 17th Amendment, asking SC to reconsider its earlier rulings.
~1965Hearing by 11-Judge Bench
Largest bench till then assembled to hear the crucial question of amendability of Fundamental Rights.
1966-1967Supreme Court Judgment
By a narrow 6:5 majority, SC overrules Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, holding that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
February 27, 196724th Amendment Passed
Parliament reacts by passing the 24th Amendment to explicitly grant itself the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, overriding Article 13.
November 5, 1971In a landmark and controversial decision, the Supreme Court, by a slender majority of 6:5, overruled its previous judgments in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. Chief Justice Subba Rao, writing for the majority, held that Fundamental Rights occupied a "transcendental and immutable" position in the Constitution.
The majority ruled that Article 368 only prescribed the procedure for amendment, not the power itself, which they located in the residual legislative powers. Consequently, a constitutional amendment was deemed "law" under Article 13(2) and could not abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. To avoid widespread chaos from invalidating past amendments, the Court applied the doctrine of "prospective overruling," meaning this ruling would apply only to future constitutional amendments.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The majority analysis radically departed from earlier interpretations. It viewed Fundamental Rights as sacrosanct guarantees essential for human dignity, placed deliberately beyond Parliament's reach. By interpreting Article 368 as purely procedural and locating the amending power within legislative competence, the majority brought amendments under the ambit of Article 13(2)'s prohibition. The introduction of prospective overruling was a significant judicial innovation to manage the practical consequences of such a major legal shift. The dissenting judges strongly adhered to the reasoning in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, emphasizing the plenary nature of Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 and warning against judicial overreach into the domain of constitutional amendment.
FINAL VERDICT
- The decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were overruled.
- Parliament has no power under Article 368 to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.
- A constitutional amendment is "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).
- This ruling applies prospectively; amendments made prior to this judgment (like the 1st, 4th, and 17th) remain valid.
- The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 (and its inclusion in the 9th Schedule) remained valid due to prospective overruling.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution hold a transcendental position and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament's amending power. Article 368 only contains the procedure for amendment, not the power itself. An amendment to the Constitution is "law" under Article 13(2) and is therefore void if it takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. (Applied prospectively).
(Note: This entire judgment regarding the inability to amend Fundamental Rights was itself overruled by the larger bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine as a limitation instead.)