LANDMARK CASE

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

AIR 1967 SC 1643 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law

At a glance

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1643
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Constitutional law
In one line: The majority held Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights by amendment, applying the ruling prospectively.

1 Facts

Land reform laws limiting holdings were challenged as violating fundamental rights.

2 Issue

Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?

3 What the court decided

The majority held Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights by amendment, applying the ruling prospectively.

4 Why it matters

It was overruled by Kesavananda but introduced prospective overruling in India.

5 Think about it

What is prospective overruling and why was it used here?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Constitutional law

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh Google India v. Visakha Industries →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.