I. C. GOLAK NATH & ORS. versus STA TE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.

I. C. GOLAK NATH & ORS. versus STA TE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.

Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights; constitutional amendments are 'law' for the purposes of Article 13(2) and are subject to Part III. However, in view of past amendments and transactions, the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied, so that future Parliament cannot amend Part III to abridge or take away fundamental rights, but past amendments remain valid.

Parties
Petitioner: I. C. Golak Nath & Ors.; Respondent: State of Punjab & Anrs.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 1967
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, Legislative Power, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Amendment of Constitution Fundamental Rights Doctrine of Prospective Overruling Legislative Power Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. C. Golak Nath & Ors.

Petitioner

State of Punjab & Anrs.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Parliament has power to amend the Constitution to take away or abridge fundamental rights under Part III
  2. 2 Whether an amendment to the Constitution is 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2)
  3. 3 Validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights; constitutional amendments are 'law' for the purposes of Article 13(2) and are subject to Part III. However, in view of past amendments and transactions, the doctrine of prospective overruling is applied, so that future Parliament cannot amend Part III to abridge or take away fundamental rights, but past amendments remain valid.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • The decision does not affect the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, or past amendments abridging fundamental rights.
  • Future Parliament will have no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights.