Landmark Supreme Court case · 1967
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Why this case matters
Held that Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights by amendment — later qualified.
Connected constitutional articles
Article 13 — Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
If a law clashes with a fundamental right, that part of the law is void. Later, a clause was added so this article is not used as a simple veto on constitutional amendments.
Article 368 — Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor
Parliament may amend the Constitution, but the basic structure doctrine (from the Supreme Court) says some features cannot be destroyed even by amendment.