I.C. Golaknath and Others vs State of Punjab and Another (1967)

Learning Outcomes:

1. Understand the scope and limitations of the Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Comprehend the constitutional distinction between ordinary laws and amendments.
3. Analyze the impact of the Golaknath case on Indian constitutional law.
4. Recognize the principle of ‘Prospective Overruling’ and its significance.

I.C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning the constitutional ability of the Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. This case explored whether the Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 extends to altering or abrogating Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The case involved a dispute between the Golaknath family (the petitioner) and the State of Punjab (the respondent).

Background

In 1953, the Punjab State Government enacted the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, restricting the landholdings of individuals. The 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, placed this Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, ostensibly shielding it from judicial review. The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of land, which the State deemed excessive. Under the 1953 Act, the State allowed the family to retain only 30 acres, declaring the remainder as surplus.

At that time, the right to hold and acquire property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f). The Golaknath family filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contesting the Act’s validity, arguing that it infringed on their Fundamental Right to property.

Legal Issues Involved

Two key legal questions arose:

1. Whether the Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through legislation: This addressed the extent of the Parliament’s power to alter Part III of the Constitution.
2. Whether an amendment is considered a ‘law’ under Article 13(2): The definition of ‘law’ here would determine whether amendments could be invalidated if they contravened Fundamental Rights.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, Golaknath, presented several contentions:

1. Fundamental Rights as Integral: The Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution were deemed essential, serving as the “soul” of the Constitution. Golaknath argued that these rights could not be abrogated or diluted by any parliamentary act.
2. Permanence of the Constitution: The petitioner emphasized that the Constitution, framed by the Constituent Assembly, was designed to be of a permanent nature. Thus, any changes should align with the “basic idea” of the Constitution.
3. Article 368 as a Procedural Mechanism: Golaknath contended that Article 368 merely provided the procedure for constitutional amendments, not the authority to alter the Constitution’s core principles.
4. Broad Definition of ‘Law’: The petitioner asserted that ‘law’ under Article 13(3)(a) included both statutory and constitutional amendments. Consequently, any law violating Part III would be unconstitutional.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Punjab, defending the Parliament’s power, made the following points:

1. Sovereign Power: The State argued that the power to amend the Constitution was an exercise of sovereign power, distinct from the Parliament’s usual legislative powers.
2. Constitutional Flexibility: Highlighting the necessity for the Constitution to evolve with society’s changing needs, the State claimed that without such flexibility, the Constitution would become too rigid.
3. Equal Status of Provisions: It was posited that all constitutional provisions held equal status, negating any special status for Fundamental Rights under Part III.

Important Note: The petitioner’s stance revolved around the idea that the Constitution’s core elements, particularly Fundamental Rights, should not be subjected to routine legislative processes for amendment.

The Judgment

Before the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court had adopted a different perspective in:

1. Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (1951).
2. Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965).

In these cases, the Court held that no part of the Constitution was unamendable, allowing Parliament to alter any constitutional provision, including Fundamental Rights, through the Constitution Amendment Act under Article 368. The Court also distinguished amendments from ‘law’ under Article 13, considering amendments an act of the Parliament in its constituent capacity.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in Golaknath Case

The Supreme Court overruled its earlier stance, determining that Fundamental Rights in Part III are immutable and cannot be amended using the process provided in Article 368. The Court reasoned:

1. Legislative Nature of Amendment: The power to amend the Constitution was deemed a legislative power conferred under Article 245. Consequently, a constitutional amendment fell within the purview of Article 13(2).
2. Requirement of a Constituent Assembly: To amend or radically change any Fundamental Right, a new Constituent Assembly would be necessary, ensuring that the essential framework of the Constitution remained intact.

Concept Note: The judgment introduced the doctrine of Prospective Overruling, meaning the decision’s effect would apply to future cases, safeguarding past actions from retroactive invalidation.

Importance of the Ruling

The decision had a profound impact:

1. Check on Parliamentary Power: It curtailed the Parliament’s authority, preventing colourable exercises of power that might infringe upon Fundamental Rights.
2. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Recognizing them as “primordial rights essential for human personality,” the Court placed a protective shield around these rights, emphasizing their significance in maintaining the Constitution’s integrity.

Impact on Constitutional Law

The ruling sparked significant responses:

1. Parliamentary Counteraction: To override the Golaknath judgment, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971.
2. Redefining Article 368: The amendment specified that constitutional amendments do not fall under the definition of ‘law’ in Article 13. Thus, amendments affecting or even repealing Fundamental Rights could not be challenged on this ground.

Comparative Summary: Pre and Post-Golaknath

Key Concept: The 24th Amendment fundamentally altered the implications of the Golaknath case, shifting the balance between constitutional flexibility and rigidity.

Multiple Choice Question

Which of the following was a key outcome of the I.C. Golaknath case?
A. The Constitution was declared unamendable.
B. Fundamental Rights were made amendable through ordinary laws.
C. The Parliament was restricted from amending Fundamental Rights.
D. Article 368 was repealed.

Correct Answer: C. The Parliament was restricted from amending Fundamental Rights.