Case Law: Golaknath vs. State of Punjab

The IC Golaknath vs. State of Punjab case (1967) is a landmark in constitutional law, addressing the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The ruling overturned earlier decisions like Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India, bringing Articles 13 and 368 into focus. Article 13 ensures that laws infringing on Fundamental Rights are unconstitutional, while Article 368 outlines the amendment procedure. The Golaknath case questioned whether Fundamental Rights could be amended and if such amendments would stand under Article 13(2).

Brief Facts of the Golaknath Case

• Filed in 1965 by Henry Golaknath's family, who owned over 500 acres of farmland in Punjab.
• The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 limited land ownership, declaring the rest surplus.
• This Act was included in the Ninth Schedule through the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
• The family argued that the Act violated their Fundamental Rights to property (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31).
• The case escalated to the Supreme Court, questioning Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

Issues of the Golaknath Case

• Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
• Is such an amendment considered a law under Article 13(2)?
• What are the limits of Parliament’s amending power?

Contentions Raised

Petitioner’s View

• The petitioner argued that the impugned Act is unconstitutional as it was placed in the 9th Schedule. Moreover, the Act contravenes, takes away, and violates Fundamental Rights such as Articles 13,14, and 31.
• The Petitioner argued that Article 13 covers all types of law Constitutional and Sovereign laws. Article 13 (2) states that a law that takes away or abridges a fundamental right is declared unconstitutional. Hence the impugned Act should be treated as unconstitutional and void.
• The Petitioner also argued that the Constitution is Supreme, and the Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Article 368 lays down the procedure to amend the Constitution and how the Constitution can be changed, but it does not grant the Constitution the power to amend the Constitution to the Parliament.
• The Constitution's Part III, which provides Fundamental Rights, is wide enough to cover all of the reasonable criteria possible and vague scenarios.
• The petitioner further asserted the inalienability of fundamental rights. The government should revoke them as they were made public under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Respondent’s View

• The respondent argued that the use of its sovereign power is what led to the constitutional amendment. The legislative authority that the parliament uses to enact laws is not the same as this exercise of sovereign power.
• The authors of our Constitution never intended for it to be inflexible. They have always favoured the inherent flexibility of our Constitution.
• The purpose of the amendment is to alter national laws in a way that best serves society. They contended that the absence of any amending provisions would render the Constitution inflexible and unworkable.
• They went on to claim that basic structure and non-basic structure are non-existent.

Judgement of the Golaknath Case

• Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that had upheld Parliament's right to amend the Constitution's entire text, including Part III, or fundamental rights, were overturned by the Golaknath Case’s decision of the court.
• Following the decision, the Parliament of India lacked the power to restrict fundamental rights.
• The Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment passed in accordance with Article 368 of the Constitution met the requirements of Article 13 (3) of the Constitution.
• Article 13 (2), didn’t allow the parliament to pass laws restricting the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution, and a constitutional amendment, which falls under the definition of an ordinary law under Article 13 and cannot, therefore, violate the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.

Impact of the Golaknath Case

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Reinforced that these rights are inviolable.
• Judicial Review: Established that amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny.
• Constitutional Stability: Ensured that the core principles, especially Fundamental Rights, remain intact.

Analysis of the Golaknath Case

The ruling was a bold move to protect democracy and citizens’ rights, though it made the Constitution more rigid by requiring a Constituent Assembly for amendments. It only safeguarded Fundamental Rights, leaving other parts of the Constitution vulnerable. Despite its imperfections, the case was a powerful reminder that Parliament must operate within constitutional limits.

Conclusion

The Golaknath case marked a turning point in Indian constitutional history. It curbed Parliament's authority to alter Fundamental Rights, upholding the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. By protecting citizens’ basic rights from legislative overreach, the case reinforced the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the Constitution.