DATE: 27/02/1967
BENCH: Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, joined
by Justices J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, and C.A. Vaidialingam, Justice
M. Hidayatullah,Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice V. Bhargava, Justice G.K. Mitter,
Justice R.S. Bachawat and Justice V. Ramaswami
FACTS:
The family of Henry and William Golaknath
were in possession of over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. Under
the Punjab security and Land Tenures Act, the government held that the brothers
could keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants and the rest
was declared surplus. This was challenged by the family of Golaknath in the
courts. Further, this case was referred to the Supreme court in 1965. The
family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the
grounds that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold
property and practice any profession (Article 19 (f) and (g) and to equality
before the protection of the law (Article 14). They sought to have the
seventeenth amendment – which had placed the Punjab Act in the ninth schedule –
declared ultra vires (beyond the powers). Golaknath. I.C v State of Punjab is
one of the landmark cases in Indian history. With its ruling, in this case, the
court developed jurisprudence around what is known as the doctrine of basic
structure. The court in 1967 ruled that the Parliament cannot curtail any of
the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution of India.
ISSUES:
The key issue before the court was whether
Parliament possesses absolute power, including the authority to amend the
fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament
does not have the authority to amend or abridge fundamental rights enshrined in
Part III of the Constitution. The Court held that fundamental rights are beyond
the scope of constitutional amendments under Article 368, ensuring their
inviolability. By a 6:5 majority, the Court overruled its earlier decisions in
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
(1965), declaring that any amendment infringing upon fundamental rights would
be unconstitutional. This landmark ruling established the primacy of
fundamental rights and curtailed Parliament's power to alter them through
amendments.
The majority reasoned that fundamental
rights are sacrosanct and form the foundation of individual liberties and
democracy in India. They expressed concerns that if Parliament were allowed
unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, it could potentially erode or
eliminate fundamental rights, thus altering the democratic nature of the
nation. The judges emphasized that these rights are natural and inherent to
individuals and cannot be taken away by legislative action. The Court also
highlighted that the Constituent Assembly intended for fundamental rights to be
permanent safeguards against potential state overreach, ensuring that citizens
remain protected from arbitrary governmental actions.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Golaknath v.
State of Punjab was a turning point in Indian constitutional law, as it
established that Parliament does not have the power to amend or abridge
fundamental rights. By asserting that fundamental rights are beyond the scope
of constitutional amendments under Article 368, the Court effectively placed a
check on legislative power, ensuring that essential freedoms granted to
citizens remain untouchable. This decision overruled previous judgments in
Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965), which had upheld Parliament’s
right to amend fundamental rights. The ruling underscored the permanence of
fundamental rights, signaling that they could not be altered through
legislative processes but only through the creation of a new Constitution by a
constituent assembly.
The Court’s reasoning was deeply rooted in
the principles of democracy and individual liberty. The majority opinion feared
that if Parliament retained unrestricted power to amend fundamental rights, it
could lead to the erosion of democratic values and the establishment of an
authoritarian regime. The judgment highlighted that fundamental rights are akin
to natural rights and serve as guarantees against state overreach, ensuring
that every citizen enjoys equal protection under the law. Furthermore, by adopting
the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Court maintained legal continuity,
allowing past amendments to remain valid while preventing future amendments
from violating fundamental rights. This decision ultimately laid the groundwork
for the Basic Structure Doctrine, later formulated in Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala (1973), which further strengthened the constitutional
safeguards against excessive legislative power.
info@adhwaitha.com