Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967) - Case Analysis

In the history of Indian jurisprudence, few cases stand out as distinctly as the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case. This landmark judgment redefined the boundaries of constitutional amendment and clarified the extent of the power of the Indian Parliament. It played a significant role in shaping the constitutional landscape of India, creating a dialogue about the role of the judiciary and its relationship with the legislature. Decided in 1967, the case revolved around the question of whether Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights. This ruling underscored the importance of fundamental rights and established that these rights could not be easily altered or taken away through the amendment process. It served as a check on legislative overreach, emphasizing the judiciary's role in protecting the constitutional rights of citizens.

Historical Context and Facts of Golaknath vs State of Punjab

The events leading up to the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case began in the early 1950s when the Parliament started amending the Constitution to implement various policies, including land reforms. Several constitutional amendments were enacted that had the potential to curtail fundamental rights, leading to concerns about the erosion of individual liberties.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

The specific issue in IC Golaknath vs State of Punjab arose when the Parliament passed the Seventeenth Amendment in 1964, adding several laws to the Ninth Schedule, thereby shielding them from judicial review. The Golaknath family, which owned a large portion of land in Punjab, challenged the Seventeenth Amendment, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights. They claimed that their right to property was undermined and that the Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights was not absolute. Key facts that provide context to the case are as follows:

Amendments to the Constitution

Prior to the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, Parliament had passed several constitutional amendments, including the Seventeenth Amendment, to implement various policies. These amendments, especially those in the Ninth Schedule, effectively protected certain laws from judicial review.

The Golaknath Family's Petition

The Golaknath family challenged the constitutionality of the Seventeenth Amendment, claiming it violated their fundamental rights. They argued that the amendment, by shielding land reform laws from judicial review, effectively took away their right to property without proper recourse.

The Court's Jurisdiction

The case was brought to the Supreme Court under Article 32, which allows individuals to approach the court for enforcement of their fundamental rights. The central issue revolved around the extent to which Parliament could amend the Constitution and whether those amendments could infringe upon fundamental rights.

Issues Raised in Golaknath vs State of Punjab

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case raised issues that continue to impact the interpretation and application of the Indian Constitution. At its core, the case questioned the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, specifically whether that power extended to altering fundamental rights. The petitioners argued that fundamental rights were inviolable and could not be amended, while the State contended that Parliament's power under Article 368 was absolute.

Parliamentary Power to Amend Fundamental Rights

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case examined whether Parliament, through its power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, could alter or remove the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This issue addressed the scope and limits of legislative authority.

Role and Scope of Article 368

Another issue was the interpretation of Article 368, which outlines the process for constitutional amendments. The question was whether this Article granted Parliament unrestricted power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case also raised questions about the judiciary's power to review constitutional amendments as to whether the judiciary could intervene if Parliament's amendments violated fundamental rights or other core constitutional principles.

Distinction Between Constitutional Amendments and Ordinary Legislation

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab case also gave rise to the issue of whether constitutional amendments could be equated with ordinary laws, subject to Article 13(2), which prohibits laws that abridge or take away fundamental rights.

The provisions at the heart of the IC Golaknath vs State of Punjab case were primarily focused on the interpretation of Article 368. The case also revolved around resolving the tension between the seemingly unlimited amending power granted by Article 368 and the protection of fundamental rights outlined in Article 13(2). Additionally, the interpretation of Part III, containing the fundamental rights themselves, was central to the court's deliberations, as the judgment would determine the limits of Parliament's power to amend these rights. 

Article 368 of the Indian Constitution

Text: "Article 368. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor.— (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation, or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article."

Relevancy in the Case: Article 368 was central to the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case as it deals with the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The petitioners challenged the validity of several amendments made to the Constitution, arguing that Parliament did not have the authority to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution..

Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution

Text: "Article 13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.— (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void."

Relevancy in the Case: Article 13(2) was invoked to argue that any amendment that abridges or takes away Fundamental Rights would be void. The petitioners contended that constitutional amendments, like ordinary laws, should be subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13(2). This provision was brought up in the argument that Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights, as any such amendment would contravene Article 13(2) and be rendered void.

Fundamental Rights (Part III) of the Indian Constitution

Text: Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens of India. These include:

• Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
• Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
• Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)

Relevancy in the Case: The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III were at the heart of the Golaknath case. The petitioners argued that these rights are sacrosanct and cannot be amended or abridged by Parliament. The case raised the question of whether the Fundamental Rights were beyond the reach of constitutional amendments under Article 368, thereby challenging the extent of Parliament's amending power.

Judgement and Impact of Golaknath vs State of Punjab

In the landmark judgement of Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court addressed several aspects of constitutional amendments:

• Validity of the Seventeenth Amendment: The Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
• Amending Power in Article 368: It was affirmed that the power to amend the Constitution is indeed contained in Article 368.
• Exclusive Nature of Article 368: The power to amend the Constitution cannot be found in Article 248 read with Item 97 of List I; it resides solely in Article 368.
• Rejection of Residuary Power Argument: The Court rejected the argument that the power to amend the Constitution is a residuary power of Parliament under Article 248 read with Item 97 of List I.
• Scope of Article 368: The Court emphasized that the power of amendment under Article 368 is distinct and not an ordinary law-making power, thereby allowing the Seventeenth Amendment to stand as a valid exercise of this power.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: While acknowledging the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, the Court also highlighted the need to protect the Fundamental Rights, thus setting a precedent for future interpretations of the amending powers of Parliament.

Impact of the Judgement

The judgment in the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case influenced the course of constitutional interpretation and governance. By establishing the principle that fundamental rights are immune to arbitrary amendment by the legislature, the ruling reinforced the foundational pillars of Indian democracy. It solidified the judiciary's role as a guardian of individual liberties and a check against legislative overreach.

Limitation on Parliamentary Power

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab ruling imposed a limitation on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, especially regarding fundamental rights. Parliament could not alter or take away these rights, even with a special majority, serving as a check on legislative overreach.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

While not explicitly establishing the Doctrine of Basic Structure, the Golaknath vs State of Punjab judgement laid its groundwork. This doctrine, fully articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case, holds that core principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments, reflecting the spirit of the Golaknath ruling.

Judicial Review Strengthened

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab judgment reinforced judicial review, affirming the Supreme Court's authority to invalidate constitutional amendments that infringe on fundamental rights, thereby highlighting the judiciary's role as a constitutional guardian.

Protection of Fundamental Rights

The Golaknath vs State of Punjab ruling enhanced the protection of fundamental rights by declaring that these rights could not be amended or repealed by Parliament, underscoring their centrality to India's constitutional framework and safeguarding citizens' rights from legislative or executive actions.

Conclusion 

Golaknath vs State of Punjab is a testament to the strength and resilience of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of citizens are not subject to the whims of transient majorities. The judgment's emphasis on the judiciary's role as a guardian of individual liberties has strengthened judicial review, ensuring that constitutional amendments adhere to the core values enshrined in the Constitution. It paved the way for the development of future legal doctrines, such as the Basic Structure Doctrine, which further fortified the constitutional framework of India. The legacy of Golaknath vs State of Punjab continues to inspire and guide the discourse on constitutional amendments and the protection of fundamental rights in India, highlighting the judiciary's role in preserving the democratic ethos of the nation.