The case involved the Golaknath family, who owned 500 acres of farmland in Punjab. In 1953, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, which imposed a ceiling on land ownership, restricting individuals to a maximum of 30 Standard Acres (or 60 ordinary acres). As a result, the Golaknath family was ordered to surrender the excess land beyond this limit and retain only 30 acres, with some additional land allocated to tenants.

The Golaknath family challenged the validity of the 1953 Act, arguing that it infringed upon their fundamental rights. They contended that the law obstructed their right to property as enshrined in Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, which guaranteed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. They also claimed that the Act hindered their ability to pursue a profession of their choice and violated their right to equal protection under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

• 1. Whether the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act of 1953 violated the Golaknath family’s right to property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.
• 2. Whether the Act impeded their ability to engage in their profession and contravened their right to equal protection under Article 14.
• 3. Whether the term 'Law' under Article 13 includes constitutional amendments passed under Article 368, affecting the validity of amendments that curtail fundamental rights.

• 1. On the Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court noted that the 1953 Act affected the right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f). The Golaknath family argued that the Act also impeded their professional opportunities and infringed on their right to equal protection under Article 14. The Court agreed to these arguments in the context of the impact of the Act on the family’s fundamental rights.
• 2. On the Scope of Article 13: The Court observed that Article 13 provides for the protection of fundamental rights against any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of those rights. The term 'law' under Article 13 includes not only ordinary laws but also constitutional amendments if they affect fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that while Article 368 prescribes the procedure for amending the Constitution, the term 'procedure' does not imply “power”. The President’s role in the amendment process was also seen and observed as identical to the exercise followed in cases of passing of ordinary law, hence found no distinct for the purpose of Article 13.
• 3. On the Power of Parliament: The Court held that Parliament does not have the power to amend the Constitution in a way that affects or curtails fundamental rights. It reasoned that amendments which affect fundamental rights would be deemed as violating Article 13.
• 4. The doctrine of prospective overruling was propounded, meaning that while the Court's decision would not affect amendments made before this judgment, it would apply to future amendments.

The Supreme Court held that:

• 1. The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act of 1953 did indeed infringe upon the Golaknath family’s right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and their right to equal protection under Article 14. The Act’s restriction on land ownership violated the fundamental right to property and also impacted their ability to pursue their profession.
• 2. The term "law" under Article 13 includes constitutional amendments, and thus Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that curtails fundamental rights.
• 3. The Court’s decision also introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling, meaning the ruling would not impact past amendments but would apply to future amendments.

The judgment led to the enactment of the 24th Amendment Act of 1971, which clarified that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend fundamental rights, thereby addressing the concerns raised by the Golaknath decision and reinforcing Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution.