I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

E547312

Indian Supreme Court case constitutional law case landmark judgment

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (4)

Label	Occurrences
Golaknath v. State of Punjab	4
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab	1
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)	1
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab canonical	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738336 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Context triple: [Article 368, subjectOf, I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab]

A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
B. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
C. Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
D. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain is a landmark 1975 Indian Supreme Court case that scrutinized the validity of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election and significantly shaped constitutional limits on parliamentary power.
E. A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Target entity description: I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.

A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
B. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
C. Waman Rao v. Union of India
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
D. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain is a landmark 1975 Indian Supreme Court case that scrutinized the validity of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election and significantly shaped constitutional limits on parliamentary power.
E. A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (47)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Indian Supreme Court case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ landmark judgment ⓘ
appliedDoctrine	prospective overruling ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional amendments ⓘ fundamental rights ⓘ
benchStrength	11-judge bench ⓘ
bindingNature	binding precedent on all Indian courts at the time of decision ⓘ
category	Indian case law on constitutional amendments ⓘ Supreme Court of India landmark decisions ⓘ
citation	(1967) 2 SCR 762 ⓘ AIR 1967 SC 1643 ⓘ
constitutionalContext	post-independence land reform and property rights disputes ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Article 13 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Article 368 of the Constitution of India ⓘ Part III of the Constitution of India ⓘ
country	India ⓘ
courtOpinionType	majority opinion with strong dissents ⓘ
decisionDate	1967-02-27 ⓘ
decisionYear	1967 ⓘ
dissentingJudges	5 ⓘ
effectOnEarlierAmendments	did not invalidate previous constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights ⓘ
geographicalContext	State of Punjab ⓘ linked to: Punjab
held	Article 368 provides only the procedure for amendment and not the power to amend ⓘ Parliament has no power to amend Part III fundamental rights of the Constitution ⓘ amendments to the Constitution are 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) ⓘ any constitutional amendment abridging or taking away fundamental rights is void under Article 13(2) ⓘ
historicalSignificance	one of the earliest major constraints on Parliament's amending power in India ⓘ paved the way for later articulation of the basic structure doctrine ⓘ
impact	temporarily curtailed Parliament's power to amend the Constitution ⓘ
introducedDoctrine	prospective overruling in Indian constitutional law ⓘ
jurisdiction	Supreme Court of India ⓘ
languageOfJudgment	English ⓘ
legalIssue	scope of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution ⓘ whether fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament ⓘ
majorityJudges	6 ⓘ
overruledPrecedent	Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ⓘ Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India ⓘ
petitioner	I.C. Golaknath ⓘ
relatedCase	Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ⓘ Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India ⓘ
respondent	State of Punjab ⓘ linked to: Punjab
subjectMatter	amendability of fundamental rights ⓘ relationship between Parliament's constituent power and fundamental rights ⓘ validity of certain Punjab land reform laws vis-à-vis fundamental rights ⓘ
subsequentDevelopment	position further modified by Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ⓘ position modified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment ⓘ

How these facts were elicited