Golaknath Case Practice Questions
20 free Golaknath Case practice questions for the Indian Polity. Tap an option to answer — you get instant feedback, the correct answer, and a detailed explanation for every question.
In which year did the Supreme Court of India deliver the landmark judgment in the I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab case?
- A 1951
- B 1965
- C 1967
- D 1973
Correct answer: 1967
The Golaknath case was decided in 1967. It was a significant departure from earlier rulings regarding the Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
How many judges sat on the Constitutional Bench for the Golaknath case?
- A 7 judges
- B 9 judges
- C 11 judges
- D 13 judges
Correct answer: 11 judges
An 11-judge bench was constituted to hear the Golaknath case. At the time, it was the largest bench ever formed to decide a constitutional matter.
The Golaknath case primarily challenged the constitutional validity of which amendment(s)?
- A 1st and 4th Amendments
- B 17th Amendment
- C 24th and 25th Amendments
- D 42nd Amendment
Correct answer: 17th Amendment
The petitioners challenged the 17th Amendment Act, 1964, which placed several state land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule. This prevented the laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights.
Which Chief Justice of India presided over the 11-judge bench in the Golaknath case?
- A CJI P.B. Gajendragadkar
- B CJI K. Subba Rao
- C CJI M. Hidayatullah
- D CJI S.M. Sikri
Correct answer: CJI K. Subba Rao
Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao led the bench and authored the majority opinion. His judgment famously declared that Fundamental Rights were 'transcendental' and 'immutable'.
What was the majority ratio in the Golaknath case judgment?
- A 6:5
- B 7:4
- C 8:3
- D 9:2
Correct answer: 6:5
The judgment was delivered with a narrow majority of 6 to 5. The six judges ruled that Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court in Golaknath ruled that an amendment under Article 368 is 'law' within the meaning of which Article?
- A Article 12
- B Article 13
- C Article 14
- D Article 32
Correct answer: Article 13
The court held that 'law' under Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments. Therefore, any amendment that abridges Fundamental Rights would be void under Article 13.
Which legal doctrine was applied for the first time in India by the Supreme Court in the Golaknath judgment?
- A Doctrine of Basic Structure
- B Doctrine of Pith and Substance Test
- C Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
- D Doctrine of Colorable Legislation
Correct answer: Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
The court applied the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, meaning the ruling would not affect the validity of past amendments (like the 1st, 4th, and 17th). It only restricted Parliament's power for future amendments.
The Golaknath judgment overruled which two previous Supreme Court decisions?
- A Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
- B Minerva Mills and Waman Rao
- C Kesavananda Bharati and Indira Gandhi
- D Berubari Union and SR Bommai
Correct answer: Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
The court overruled Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965). In those cases, the court had previously held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
According to the majority in Golaknath, where did the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution reside?
- A Under Article 368 as an express power
- B Article 13 of the Constitution
- C The Preamble to the Constitution
- D Residuary powers under Article 248
Correct answer: Residuary powers under Article 248
The court argued that Article 368 only described the 'procedure' for amendment. The actual 'power' to amend was found in the residuary legislative powers of Parliament under Article 248.
What was the reaction of the Parliament to the Golaknath verdict?
- A Repeal of the 17th Amendment
- B Abolition of the Ninth Schedule
- C Reduction of the number of SC judges
- D Passing of the 24th Amendment Act
Correct answer: Passing of the 24th Amendment Act
Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act in 1971 to nullify the Golaknath ruling. It explicitly stated that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
The Golaknath case involved a dispute over land ownership in which state?
- A Kerala
- B West Bengal
- C Punjab
- D Bihar
Correct answer: Punjab
The case was filed by Henry and William Golaknath, who challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. They were told they could only keep a certain amount of their 500-acre estate.
Which judge in the Golaknath case later became the Vice President of India?
- A Justice K. Subba Rao
- B Justice Jayantilal Shah
- C Justice S.M. Sikri
- D Justice M. Hidayatullah
Correct answer: Justice M. Hidayatullah
Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah was part of the majority in the Golaknath case. He later served as the Chief Justice of India, the Vice President, and the acting President of India.
The minority opinion in the Golaknath case argued that the power to amend the Constitution is a ________ power.
- A Legislative
- B Executive
- C Constituent
- D Administrative
Correct answer: Constituent
The five dissenting judges argued that the power to amend the Constitution (Constituent power) is distinct from ordinary legislative power. Therefore, they believed Article 13 did not apply to amendments.
In Golaknath, the court held that to amend Fundamental Rights, which body would have to be convened?
- A A Joint Session of Parliament
- B A National Referendum
- C A special session of the Rajya Sabha
- D A Constituent Assembly
Correct answer: A Constituent Assembly
The majority suggested that if Fundamental Rights needed to be abridged, a new Constituent Assembly would have to be called. They held that Parliament was a creature of the Constitution and could not change its essential character.
Which specific Fundamental Right was at the heart of the Golaknath petitioners' grievance?
- A Right to Religion
- B Right to Equality
- C Right to Property
- D Right to Education
Correct answer: Right to Property
The case centered on the Right to Property (then Articles 19(1)(f) and 31). The land reform laws limited the amount of land individuals could own, which the petitioners claimed violated their rights.
The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, used in Golaknath, was borrowed from which legal system?
- A British Law
- B Australian Law
- C French Law
- D American Law
Correct answer: American Law
Prospective Overruling is an American judicial doctrine. CJI Subba Rao adopted it to ensure that striking down the power of amendment wouldn't create chaos by invalidating years of previous land reforms.
Which of the following describes the status of the Golaknath judgment today?
- A It is still the law of the land.
- B It was upheld by the Kesavananda Bharati case.
- C It was incorporated into the 42nd Amendment.
- D It was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati.
Correct answer: It was overruled by Kesavananda Bharati.
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) overruled Golaknath. It held that Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights, provided the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution remains intact.
Before the 24th Amendment, Article 368 was titled 'Procedure for Amendment of the Constitution'. What was it changed to?
- A Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure therefor
- B Supreme Power of Parliament to Amend Any Part of the Constitution
- C General Rules Governing the Process of Constitutional Change
- D Exclusive and Supreme Power of the Union Legislature
Correct answer: Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure therefor
The 24th Amendment changed the title to 'Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure therefor'. This was done to clarify that the Article contained the 'power' and not just the 'procedure'.
In the Golaknath case, the court equated the 'Amendment of the Constitution' with which type of activity?
- A Ordinary legislative power
- B A form of constituent action
- C Judicial interpretation
- D An executive decree
Correct answer: Ordinary legislative power
By placing Article 368 under the umbrella of Article 248 (residuary powers), the court treated constitutional amendments as ordinary legislation. This meant they were subject to the restrictions of Article 13(2).
Which Article of the Constitution was amended by the 24th Amendment to state that 'nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution'?
- A Article 13
- B Article 14
- C Article 19
- D Article 21
Correct answer: Article 13
A new clause (4) was added to Article 13. This clause explicitly exempted constitutional amendments from the definition of 'law' used to strike down statutes that violate Fundamental Rights.