I.C. Golak Nath and Others v State of Punjab

Facts

• The Golak Nath family's agricultural landholdings in Punjab were subjected to ceiling limits under state land reform legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule
• The family challenged the validity of the constitutional amendments that inserted these laws into the Ninth Schedule, arguing they violated fundamental rights under Part III
• The case required the Court to resolve whether Parliament's amending power under Article 368 was subject to Part III limitations

Issue

1. Whether Parliament, exercising its constituent power under Article 368, can amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III.

Held

• By a majority of 6:5, the Court held that a constitutional amendment is "law" within Article 13(2), which prohibits the state from making any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights
• Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is subject to Part III, and cannot be used to abridge or take away fundamental rights
• The majority also invoked the idea of implied limitations on the amending power, foreshadowing the basic structure doctrine later developed in Kesavananda Bharati
• The decision prospectively overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), which had held amendments were not "law" under Article 13(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Fundamental rights under Part III cannot be abridged or taken away by a constitutional amendment made under Article 368, since such an amendment constitutes "law" for the purposes of Article 13(2) and must conform to fundamental rights.