10:24
GVK Industries v. Income Tax Officer
Constitutional Law I
Study material
Explained in
Published material from The Law Easy that cites Article 245.
Video lectures
10:24
Notes and articles
Constitutional Law II
57 Constitutional Cases in Brief: Quick Notes
Issue: Can the government choose judges even when the Chief Justice disagrees?
48 min read
Constitutional Law II Case compilation
57 Landmark Constitutional Cases: Complete Notes
About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) These notes cover the 57 most important cases of Indian Constitutional Law . They are the cases that keep coming up in LL.B. examinations, in judiciary examinations and in every serious discussion of constitutional law. Every case is studied…
411 min read
Constitutional Law I Complete notes
Constitution I One Shot
Definition: Constitutionalism is a system that gives legitimacy to a democratic government.
69 min read
Case laws
GVK Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2011
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 245 of the Constitution deals with how far laws made by Parliament and State legislatures can extend. GVK Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) answers a precise question: can Parliament make laws about things that happen outside the terri…
Constitutional Law I
GVK Industries
Supreme Court of India · 2011
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Parliament can make laws on matters outside India (extra-territorial aspects or causes) only if they have a real, not imaginary or fanciful, nexus with India, meaning some impact on or connection with India or the interest, welfare or security of its people. Parliament cannot make a law only for a foreign territory that has nothing to do with India. Such a law would be ultra vires and void. The case matters because it explains the limits of Parliament's power under Article 245 and stresses that the Indian Parliament is not an unlimited sovereign.
Constitutional Law II
Golaknath
Supreme Court of India · 1967
In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held by six to five that Parliament cannot take away or curtail fundamental rights, because a constitutional amendment is also 'law' under Article 13(2). It overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. To avoid legal chaos, it applied the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in India, so the past amendments and the challenged land reform Acts stayed valid.
Constitutional Law II
Practice MCQs
1 practice question tests this article.
- 1 In Golaknath, what was Justice Hidayatullah's view on where Parliament's power to amend the Constitution comes from?
Official text
We show statutory text only after checking it word for word against the official source. Read Article 245 of the Constitution of India on India Code.
Open India Code