Golaknath v/s State of Punjab

On February 22, 1967, the Golaknath case was heard by the Supreme Court of India. This historic case would eventually change the course of Indian history. The petitioner argued that Parliament did not have the right to amend the Constitution without first consulting with the States. The respondent argued that Parliament had every right to amend the Constitution as it saw fit. On May 17, 1967, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict. In a 6-5 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Golaknath and declared that Parliament could not amend the Constitution without first consulting with the States. The bench was headed by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao. At the time when this case was heard by the supreme court, the parliament was passing various amendments which were infringing the fundamental rights of the people. This landmark decision would go on to shape India’s democratic landscape for years to come.

What was the issue before the Supreme court in the case of Golaknath v/s State of Punjab?

The issue before the supreme court in the case of Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab was whether parliament has absolute power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution. An act was passed through which a person was not allowed to keep more than 30 acres of land and the petitioner’s land was being taken as surplus land by the government. While discussing this judgement the court had to look upon its earlier judgments given in Sajjan Singh and Shankari prasad.

What was the petitioner’s argument?

In this case, the solicitor argued that the constitution was drafted by the constituent assembly, and no one can change it. They further said that the word amendment only implied that it can be changed without affecting the basic structure. Further, the petitioner’s argument was concerned with the fact that fundamental rights exalted under part III of the constitution can’t be taken away by Parliament through an amendment. It is one of the most essential and integral parts of the constitution. The other set of petitioner’s argument was concerned with the fact that Article 368 only defines the procedure for amending the constitution but it does not give power to parliament to amend the constitution. Article 13 (3)(a) covers both statutory and constitutional law.

What was the Respondent’s Argument?

In this case, the respondent’s argument was concerned with the argument that constitutional amendment was done as a result of sovereign power and it is different from the legislative power which parliament has exercises to make regular laws. Further, the respondent’s argument was concerned with the fact that constitution-makers did not want to make it a rigid document but wanted to make it a flexible, dynamic, and living document. The object of the said is to bring change in-laws of the country as deemed fit for society. They further argued that there is no such thing as a basic structure and non-basic structure. Lastly, it said that there is no hierarchy in constitutional provisions.

What was the judgement of the supreme court?

The eleven judges constitutional bench of the supreme court by 6:5 majority pronounced its judgement, at the time when the case was decided it was the largest beach up to that time. The CJI K. Subba Rao along with J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, Justice Hiddayatullah agreeing with CJI wrote a separate judgement and C.A. Vaidiyalingam wrote the major opinion. The Supreme court in this case showed scepticism on the functioning of parliament and held that parliament has no right to amend the fundamental rights. It overturned the supreme court’s judgement in Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad’s cases. The fundamental rights were beyond the control of parliamentary legislation. The Supreme court further said in this case if parliament is allowed to change every provision of the constitution, it shall result in autocracy and that is why the majority of the judges kept fundamental rights beyond the amending power of the constitution. The majority of judges opined that fundamental rights are the same as natural rights and are essential for the development and growth of human life. This judgement came at a time when the governments were becoming more autocratic and this judgement established the rule of law by putting a check and balance on the amending power of the parliament.

Conclusion

In 1967, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of Golaknath v/s State of Punjab, striking down the Punjab act of 1953. The ruling, in this case, changed India’s constitutional framework and entrenched the principle of judicial review. It also affirmed that fundamental rights are not subject to amendment by Parliament. This landmark ruling has been cited in many subsequent cases and is considered a cornerstone of Indian democracy. The case is also studied in law schools across India as an example of how the judiciary can protect citizens’ rights against encroachment by the legislature.