Golaknath Case

Is it possible for the Indian Parliament to limit or amend the Constitution’s fundamental rights? Is it possible to consider an amendment to any portion of the Constitution to be a law? The I.C Golaknath Case’s key deliberation point was these two factors. In Golakhnath Case the court held that the parliament could not amend the fundamental rights. This ruling was overturned in Kesavananda Bharati vs Union of India 1973. In this case, the court held that the parliament could amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but the parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution.

Background

• Since the passage of the Indian Constitution, arguments have erupted about the Parliament’s ability to change major articles of the document

• The Supreme Court gave Parliament absolute power to change the Constitution in the early years of independence, as evidenced by the rulings in the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases (1965)

• In both cases, the court had held that the phrase “law” in Article 13 must be interpreted to mean rules or regulations issued in the regular legislative authority, not amendments to the Constitution made under Article 368’s constituent power

• This meant that Parliament might change any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights

• “The State shall not create any law that takes away or abridges the right given by this Part (Part-III), and any law made in contravention of this clause shall be void to the degree of contravention,” according to Article 13(2)

• The Supreme Court, however, concluded in the Golaknath case Preamble(1967) that Parliament could not change Fundamental Rights and that this power would be reserved for a Constituent Assembly

• The Court determined that an amendment made under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and so is unlawful if it “takes away or abridged” a Fundamental Right granted under Part III

• To address the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Golaknath case Judgement (1967), the RC Cooper case (1970), and the Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then-government led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi adopted substantial constitutional modifications (the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th)

• In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the government’s four revisions were all challenged

Golakhnath Case Summary 

In Jalandhar, Punjab, Henry and William Golaknath owned about 500 acres of agriculture. The government ruled that the brothers could maintain just thirty acres each under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, with a few acres going to renters and the rest declared excess. The family of golaknath disputed this in the courts. In addition, in 1965, this matter was sent to the Supreme Court. The family filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the Punjab Act of 1953 violated their constitutional rights to acquire and keep the property, practice any profession (Article 19 (f) and (g)), and to equality before the law (Article 14).They wanted the seventeenth amendment, which put the Punjab Act in the ninth schedule, declared unconstitutional (beyond the powers). Golaknath. One of the most important cases in Indian history is I.C v State of Punjab. The court established jurisprudence around the idea of basic structure with its decision in this case. In 1967, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not limit any fundamental rights guaranteed by India’s Constitution.

Golaknath Case Judgement 

The 17th Amendment, according to Justice Subba Rao, violated the Constitution’s fundamental rights to acquire land and engage in any lawful profession provided to Indian citizens. However, because he applied the Prospective Overruling Doctrine, the Supreme Court’s decision had no bearing on the constitutionality of the 17th Amendment and thus the 1953 law. However, Justice Subba Rao emphasised that the Parliament would no longer have the power to modify Part III of the Constitution, which deals with people’s fundamental rights.

Significance of Golaknath Case Judgement:

Parliament passed the 24th Amendment in 1971 to repeal the SC judgement. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights.

Conclusion

One of the most important cases in Indian history was Golakhnath vs Punjab. This case’s decision came at a critical juncture. It arrived when India’s democracy was reeling from the onset of the country’s “darkest decade.” This decision aided in preventing the parliament from displaying its tyranny. The majority bench was concerned about the Constitution’s soul deteriorating. This ruling prohibited the parliament from infringing on citizens’ fundamental rights by enacting legislation that reduced the chamber’s authoritarianism. The court’s decision focused on safeguarding fundamental provisions equal to humankind’s fundamental or natural rights, which no government may take away. So far, we have learnt about the Golakhnath Case and its relation to the preamble.