I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of IndiaAIR 1967 SC 1643Bench: Supreme Court of India
Related sections: Articles 13, 368
By majority, the Court held that Parliament could not amend or abridge fundamental rights. It applied prospective overruling so that earlier amendments were not invalidated. The holding reflects the result and the principal reasons accepted by the court, while recognising that separate opinions may have used different reasoning. In recording this field for I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the emphasis is on the operative legal controversy, the constitutional or statutory setting, and the precise institutional consequence of the decision rather than on later popular summaries. The description should be read with the reported judgment, because landmark decisions often contain several concurring or dissenting opinions, different reasons, and later qualifications. For database use, this note separates held from broader commentary: it identifies the controlling principle, the procedural posture, and the relief actually granted or refused without adding unverified facts. In recording this field for I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the emphasis is on the operative legal controversy, the constitutional or statutory setting, and the precise institutional consequence of the decision rather than on later popular summaries. The description should be read with the reported judgment, because landmark decisions often contain several concurring or dissenting opinions, different reasons, and later qualifications. For database use, this note separates held from broader commentary: it identifies the controlling principle, the procedural posture, and the relief actually granted or refused without adding unverified facts.