Case Analysis: I.C Golaknath v State of Punjab (1971)

Introduction

I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law. The case was heard by a bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court of India in 1967. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Indian Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. 

Citation: AIR 1971 SC 1643[3]

Judges: Subba Rao (CJ), Wanchoo, K.N. Hidyatullah, M. Shah, J.C. Sikri, S.M. Bachawat, R.S. Ramaswami, V. Shelat, J.M. Bhargava, Vishishtha Mitter, G.K. Vaidyialingam, C.A.

Facts

The group of Henry and William Golaknath were in possession of more than 500 acres of land farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. Under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, the public authority held that the siblings could keep just thirty acres of land each, a couple of sections of land would go to occupants, and the rest was proclaimed excess. The group of Golaknath in the courts challenged this. Further, this case alluded to the Supreme Court in 1965.

The family documented a request under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act in light of the fact that it denied them their sacred rights to procure and hold property and practice any calling (Article 19 (f) and (g) and to uniformity before the insurance of the law (Article 14). They looked to have the seventeenth amendment – which had set the Punjab Act in the ninth timetable – proclaimed ultra vires (past the forces).

Issues

1. Whether Parliament have the power to amend the Part III of the Constitution, to take away or abridge fundamental rights?
2. Whether Constitutional (17^th Amendment) Act 1964, which inserted certain states Acts in the 9^th Schedule is valid or not?

Arguments

Petitioners Arguments

1. It was contended by Petitioners that Parliament had no power to amend fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution.
2. It was contended by Petitioners that Article 368 only defines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It does not grant the power to parliament to amend the Constitution.
3. The petitioners also went on to contend that the Amendment under Article 368 does not mean a change of the Constitution with new ideas, but it is merely a change according to the current parlance. The basic ideas cannot be amended by the Parliament.
4. It was contended that the Indian Constituent Assembly while adopting the manner of amendment to the Constitution, adopted a mid-way between flexible and rigid so that Parliament does not go on amending the basic feature.
5. It was contended by the petitioner that Article 13(3)(a), in its definition of “law”, will cover all types of law, i.e. statutory or constitutional etc., in its ambit; therefore by virtue of Article 13(2), any constitutional amendment violates of Part III will be unconstitutional.

Respondents Arguments

1. The respondent contended that during the framing of the constitution, lawmakers hadn’t made an exception to Article 386 of the Constitution to eliminate fundamental rights from being amended.
2. The respondent went on to state that the very object of the amendment is to change the laws of the nation as per the changing needs of society. The absence of such a provision would result in Constitution becoming too rigid.
3. The respondent contended that there is no hierarchy in the Constitutional provisions as basic or non-basic, and all the provisions are of equal importance and equal status.
4. The respondent contended that the constitutional amendment is a result of exercising its sovereign power, which the parliament enumerates from the Constitution. This exercise of sovereign power is different from the legislative power, which the parliament exercises to make the laws.

Judgement

Majority Judgement

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 6 to 5, prospectively overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases and held that Parliament has no power from the date of this decision to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away the fundamental rights.

Subba Rao CJ. supported his judgement on the following reasoning:

1. The court rejected the argument that the power to amend the Constitution was a sovereign power and the said power was supreme to the legislative power and that it did permit any implied limitations, and that amendments made in the exercise of that power involve political questions and that therefore they were outside the purview of judicial review.
2. the power of parliament to amend the Constitution is derived from Article 245, read with Entry 97 of List 1 of the Constitution and not from Article 368. Article 368 lays down merely the procedure for amendment of the Constitution.
3. An amendment is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2), and therefore, if it violates any fundamental right, it may be declared void. The word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) includes every law, statutory as well as constitutional law and hence constitutional amendment which is in contravention of Article 13(2) shall be declared void.

The majority judgement also held that the fundamental rights are assigned transcendental phases under our constitution, and therefore, they are kept beyond the reach of parliament. The court applied Prospective Overruling and held that the decision would have only prospective operation and, therefore, the 1^st, 4^th and 17^th Amendment will continue to be valid.

Minority Judgement

Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava, and G.K Mitter all composed single minority sentiment and judges R.S. Bachawat and V. Ramaswami composed separate minority conclusions.

The minority judgement however held that the word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) of the Constitution referred to only ordinary law and not a constitutional amendment and hence Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh Judgements were rightly decided.

Article 368 of the Constitution does not only lay down the procedure that needs to be followed by the Parliament while amending the Constitution but also gives the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution of India.

Analysis

The judgment was focused on protecting the fundamental provisions which are equal to the fundamental or natural rights of mankind and no government can take it. Golaknath is a kind of victory of “rule of law” because it made it clear that even the lawmakers are not above the law.

The court held that the parliament can’t change the fundamental rights. The judgement of Golaknath is not a perfect judgement. One of the biggest flaws was that the judgement granted rigidity to the constitution.

This decision toppled in Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India[4]. In this, the court held that the parliament can alter the constitution including basic rights however the parliament can’t change the essential structure of the constitution. In that way, Golaknath was partially overruled by the Kesavananda Bharthi case.

---

[1] AIR 1951 SC 455

[2] AIR 1965 SC 845

[3] https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/2449.pdf.

[4] AIR 1973 SC 1461.

---

1. Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
2. Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination