
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): A Landmark Case in Indian Legal History
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case is a landmark case in Indian legal history. It raised significant questions about the power of the Parliament to amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. The central issue in this case was whether the Parliament had the authority to amend the fundamental rights or not. The petitioners argued that the Parliament had no power to amend the fundamental rights, while the respondents contended that the Constitution-makers intended for the Constitution to be flexible and amendable. Ultimately, the court held that the Parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights. However, this ruling was later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case in 1973.
Significance of Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are the primary rights that shape the personalities of individuals and provide protection to minorities, backward classes, and other vulnerable sections of society. These rights are essential for the growth and development of human beings. The Constitution of India has placed fundamental rights in a safe place, out of the reach of the Parliament. Any legislation that infringes upon the fundamental rights can be declared void by the court. The Constitution has declared fundamental rights as "justiciable," meaning that individuals whose rights have been infringed by the state can seek recourse in the court. Fundamental rights are also given priority over the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are non-justiciable. The court has recognized the importance of fundamental rights through various landmark cases.
Important Legal Questions Involved
The Golaknath case involved several important legal questions, including the conflict between Article 13(2) and Article 368, the validity of the 1st Amendment Act, the validity of the 17th Amendment Act, and the Parliament's amending power. The conflict between Article 13(2) and Article 368 was a crucial issue in this case. Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making any law that contravenes the fundamental rights, while Article 368 empowers the Parliament to amend any provision of the Constitution. The court had to determine whether the Parliament could amend the fundamental rights despite the prohibition in Article 13(2).
Conflict between Article 13(2) and Article 368
Article 13(2) states that any law made by the state that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights would be void. On the other hand, Article 368 empowers the Parliament to amend any provision of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that Article 368 cannot be amended to empower the Parliament to amend the fundamental rights as it would go against Article 13(2). However, the dissenting judges believed that Article 368 has the power to amend all provisions of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. The majority held that the cases of Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which gave precedence to the amending power of Parliament over fundamental rights, were erroneous decisions. The court held that Parliament cannot abridge or take away the fundamental rights through amendments to Article 368.
Validity of the 1st Amendment Act
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended various constitutional provisions, including Article 14 and Article 19, and inserted Article 31-A and Article 31-B with retrospective effect. The purpose of this amendment was to provide for the acquisition of zamindari lands and the abolition of permanent settlement without any intervention from the court. The constitutionality of this amendment was challenged in the Sri Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India case, where it was held to be valid. The court rejected the contention that amendments made under Article 368 should be tested under Article 13(2). However, in the Golaknath case, the majority held that the decision in Sri Shankari Prasad was wrongly decided.
Validity of the 17th Amendment Act
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 amended Article 31A and extended the definition of "estate" to include ryotwari and agricultural lands. It also added two Acts, the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, to the Ninth Schedule. This amendment saved these Acts from being declared unconstitutional on the grounds that they were inconsistent with the fundamental rights. The validity of this Amendment Act was challenged in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case, where it was held to be valid. The court in this case declared that Parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights.
Parliament's Amending Power
The majority in the Golaknath case held that Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights due to their significance in a democratic state and the potential for misuse of the amending power. The fundamental rights are given a transcendental position in the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The court stated that the word "law" in Article 13(2) refers to laws made in the exercise of legislative power and not constitutional law made in the exercise of constituent power. The court also emphasized that there is a difference between constitutional law and ordinary law, and ordinary legislation must conform to the fundamental laws.
Differences in Amending Fundamental Laws and Other Legislations
The only difference between constitutional law and ordinary law is that constitutional laws are generally amendable through a more difficult or elaborate process. Despite the claim that Article 368 is a complete code for the procedure of amendments, other provisions of the Constitution show that amendments can be made through the ordinary law-making procedure. The court quoted the view of legal jurist Sir Ivor Jennings, who stated that there is a clear separation between constitutional law and other laws. The court held that the term "law" in Article 13(3) includes constitutional amendments in a wider sense.
Whether Amendments are Included in the Definition of Law
The definition of law in Article 13(3) of the Constitution includes various types of laws but does not explicitly mention constitutional amendments. However, the court held that, in a wider sense, the term "law" includes constitutional amendments. The court interpreted Article 13(2) in conjunction with Article 368 and concluded that any amendment violating the fundamental rights would be void. The court clarified that while the definition of law in Article 13(3)(c) does not expressly mention amendments, it is included in it.
Identification of Parties
In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, the petitioners were I.C Golaknath & Ors, and the respondent was the State of Punjab. The judgment was delivered on February 27, 1967, by a bench consisting of Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice Hidayatullah, Justice J.C. Shah, Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice R.S. Bachawat, Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice Vashisht, Justice Mitter, and Justice Vaidyalingam.
Summary of Facts
The Golaknath case involved the Golaknath family, who owned over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act declared most of their land as surplus, allowing them to keep only thirty acres each. The family challenged the constitutionality of this act in court, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights to property and equality before the law. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in 1965, where the family filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They sought to have the 17th Amendment Act, which placed the Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule, declared ultra vires. The Golaknath case is significant because it established the doctrine of basic structure, which limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Issues before the Court
The main issue before the court was whether the Parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the Parliament had no such power, while the respondents contended that the Constitution-makers intended for the Constitution to be flexible and amendable. The court had to decide the extent of the Parliament's amending power and its relationship with the fundamental rights.
Contention of the Parties
The petitioners argued that the Constitution of India was drafted by the constituent assembly and is of a permanent nature. They contended that the Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights, as they are an essential and integral part of the Constitution. The petitioners also argued that the definition of law in Article 13(3)(a) covers all types of law, including constitutional amendments. They contended that any amendment violating the fundamental rights would be unconstitutional and invalid. On the other hand, the respondents argued that constitutional amendments are a result of the exercise of the Parliament's sovereign power. They contended that the Constitution-makers intended for the Constitution to be flexible and amendable.
Important Case Laws Referred
The Golaknath case referred to two important case laws: Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (UOI) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In the Sri Shankari Prasad case, the court held that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. In the Sajjan Singh case, the court upheld the validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which amended Article 31A and inserted the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, into the Ninth Schedule. These cases were referred to in the Golaknath case to determine the Parliament's amending power and its relationship with the fundamental rights.
Judgement (Ratio and Obiter)
In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, with a majority of 6:5 in favor of the petitioners. The majority held that the Parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. They emphasized the importance of fundamental rights and held that they are beyond the reach of parliamentary legislation. The majority believed that the Parliament was drawing power from Article 368, which only provides the procedure for amendments, rather than the authority to amend the Constitution. However, the minority disagreed with the majority and argued that the Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights. They believed that the decision of the majority would make the Constitution rigid and static. The judgement of the Golaknath case was later overruled in the Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case in 1973.
Critical Analysis of the Judgement
The Golaknath case was a significant decision in Indian legal history. It played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution and the limits of the Parliament's amending power. The majority's decision to limit the Parliament's power to amend the fundamental rights was aimed at preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preventing the potential misuse of power. However, the judgement also had some flaws. The court granted rigidity to the Constitution, which could have limited its adaptability to changing circumstances. Additionally, the court only protected the fundamental rights from the Parliament's power, but it could have protected all the fundamental features of the Constitution. Despite these flaws, the Golaknath case reinforced the principle that no one, including the Parliament, is above the law and that the Constitution is supreme.
Conclusion
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case is a landmark case in Indian legal history. It raised significant questions about the power of the Parliament to amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The court held that the Parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights, but this ruling was later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case. The Golaknath case played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution and reaffirming the supremacy of the law. Despite some flaws in the judgement, it emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental rights and preserving the integrity of the Constitution.