| CASE NAME | I.C. GOLAKNATH & ORS.Vs.STATE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.(With Connected Petitions |
| CITATION | 1967 AIR 16431967 SCR(2) 762 |
| COURT | In the Supreme Court of India |
| BENCH | RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ), WANCHOO, K.N., HIDAYATULLAH, M, SHAH, J.C., SIKRI, S.M., BACHAWAT, R.S., RAMASWAMI, V., SHELAT, J.M., BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA, MITTER, G.K., VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. |
| APPELLANT | I.C. GOLAKNATH & ORS. |
| RESPONDENT | STATE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.(With Connected Petitions |
| DECIDED ON | 27/02/1967 |
Background of the case
In the heart of Punjab’s Jalandhar district, two brothers, Henry and William Golaknath, held ownership of a substantial tract of land, encompassing approximately 500 acres. However, their vast property holdings were threatened by the newly implemented Punjab Security and Land Tenure Act.
Under the provisions of this act, the Golaknath brothers were informed that their landholdings would be drastically reduced to a mere 30 acres. The remaining land would be redistributed among tenants, while the government would seize the surplus acreage.
Unwilling to relinquish their land, the Golaknath family mounted a legal challenge against the Punjab government’s act. Their case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India in 1965.
Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, the Golaknath family contended that the 1953 Punjab legislation infringed upon their fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 19(f) and 19(g), which safeguard the right to acquire and retain property and pursue any profession. They further asserted their right to equality before the law under Article 14.
Additionally, they challenged the constitutionality of the Punjab Act’s inclusion in the Ninth Schedule through the 17th Amendment, arguing that it was an overreach of legislative authority.
The Golaknath I.C. v State of Punjab case stands as a landmark decision in India’s legal history. In its 1967 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the Indian Parliament lacked the power to curtail any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
This landmark judgement established the concept of the ‘basic structure doctrine,’ which posits that certain fundamental elements of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, cannot be altered or abrogated by the legislature.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners in this case challenged the notion that the Indian Constitution is permanent and unalterable. They presented several arguments to support their contention:
- Limited Scope of Amendments: The petitioners argued that the term “amendment” in the context of the Indian Constitution refers only to minor changes or modifications that are consistent with the fundamental principles and structure of the Constitution. They emphasised that amendments should not introduce entirely new concepts or principles that deviate from the core framework of the Constitution.
- Absolute Nature of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners asserted that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution are absolute and inviolable. They argued that these rights are guaranteed to the citizens and cannot be revoked or taken away by the government, even through constitutional amendments.
- Restrictions on Amending Powers: The petitioners contended that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, does not grant Parliament the absolute authority to make any changes it deems fit. They argued that amendments must be made in accordance with the limitations and safeguards laid out in the Constitution itself.
- Judicial Review of Amendments: The petitioners invoked Article 13(3)a of the Indian Constitution, which states that no law enacted by the state or the central government can abridge or take away the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. They argued that this provision extends to constitutional amendments, implying that any amendment that violates fundamental rights would be invalid and unenforceable.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents in this case countered the petitioners’ arguments by presenting their own perspective on the nature and scope of constitutional amendments:
- Sovereign Authority for Amendments: The respondents emphasised that the power to amend the Constitution originates from the inherent sovereign authority of the people, not from Parliament’s ordinary legislative powers. They argued that this distinction highlights the unique and elevated status of constitutional amendments.
- Adaptability of the Constitution: The respondents asserted that the framers of the Indian Constitution intentionally designed it to be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances and societal needs. They maintained that the ability to amend the Constitution is crucial for ensuring its enduring relevance and effectiveness.
- Dynamic Nature of the Constitution: The respondents argued that the concept of a “basic structure” or “non-basic structure” within the Constitution is artificial and unnecessary. They contended that all constitutional provisions are equally important and should be treated with equal respect.
- Equal Weight of Provisions: The respondents maintained that every provision of the Constitution holds equal weight and significance. They argued that there is no hierarchy among provisions, and the notion of certain provisions being more fundamental than others is untenable.
- Evolutionary Approach to Amendments: The respondents advocated for an evolutionary approach to constitutional amendments, suggesting that changes should be made thoughtfully and judiciously, guided by the principles of democracy, equality, and justice. They emphasised that amendments should not be used to undermine the fundamental values and principles enshrined in the Constitution.
DECISION
The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority of 6:5, held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that fundamental rights were not absolute but could be subject to reasonable restrictions, provided such restrictions were made for a public purpose and were not arbitrary or unreasonable. However, Parliament could not use its amending power to nullify or abrogate fundamental rights altogether.
Significance of the Judgment
The Golaknath judgement had a profound impact on Indian constitutional law. It strengthened the protection of fundamental rights and established a crucial safeguard against arbitrary or unreasonable state action. The judgment also affirmed the role of the Supreme Court as the guardian of fundamental rights.
Concept of Basic Structure Doctrine
The Golaknath case also introduced the concept of the “basic structure doctrine” in Indian constitutional law. This doctrine, though not explicitly articulated in the judgment, was implied from the Court’s reasoning. The basic structure doctrine states that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters or destroys the fundamental features of the Constitution. These essential features include fundamental rights, the rule of law, the parliamentary system of government, and the separation of powers.
Analysis of the judgment
The Indian Constitution grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has emerged as a guardian, invalidating any legislation that it deems to undermine the Constitution’s fundamental principles under the guise of improvement. Fundamental rights are essential for individuals seeking to live in a just society.
The Constitution empowers both Parliament and the government to enact laws for the public good within their respective spheres. The Constitution also entrusts the judiciary with the responsibility of determining the constitutional validity of all legislation.
The majority judgement in the Golaknath case deserves praise for its attempt to safeguard Indian democracy from potential overreach by Parliament.
While the majority’s rationale for their decision, the fear of India’s descent into authoritarian rule, is understandable, why should its scope be limited to fundamental rights alone? One of the most crucial questions left unanswered by the Golaknath decision is the precise extent to which the definition of amendment can be stretched.
CONCLUSION
The Golaknath case marked a significant turning point in India’s history. Although arriving at a difficult moment during a challenging period for the nation, the judgement served as a critical check on parliament’s power.
Driven by concerns for potential weakening of the constitution, the majority bench issued a decision that ultimately restrained the legislature from enacting laws that could infringe upon fundamental rights.
The essential theme of the case revolved around safeguarding intrinsic human rights that cannot be revoked by any governing body. The Golaknath case reinforced the principle of “rule of law” by establishing that even those who frame laws are not above them. This instilled a sense of confidence in the supremacy of the law itself, rather than the individuals involved in its creation, enforcement, and interpretation.
However, no judgment is without its imperfections. A significant drawback of the Golaknath verdict was the rigidity it imposed upon the constitution. Any future amendments required the intervention of a constituent assembly.
Furthermore, the court protected only fundamental rights from parliament’s absolute influence while it could have extended this shield to encompass all essential features of the constitution. This missed opportunity, along with other shortcomings in the judgment, paved the way for its eventual reversal in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case of 1973.
