Constitution Case Commentary Series – I.C. GOLAKNATH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1967 AIR 1643)

Constitution Case Commentary Series – I.C. GOLAKNATH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1967 AIR 1643)

21 May, 2022

Author – Deva Dharshini K, 4th year B.A., LL.B, Chennai Dr Ambedkar Govt law college Pudupakkam.

INTRODUCTION:

Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a seminal case in Indian legal history. In this situation, several questions were raised. But the most crucial question was whether the parliament had the authority to change the basic rights established in Part III of the Indian Constitution.[1] Beginning with its decision in GOLAKNATH, the Court developed jurisprudence based on the basic structural concept. According to this idea, the Court was responsible for avoiding the loss of those enduring values that are at the heart of constitutionalism.[2]

Forum / Name of the Court Supreme Court of India
Equivalent Citations  1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
PetitionerC.Golaknath & ors
RespondentState of Punjab and anrs
Presiding Members of the BenchRao K. Subba (CJ)
Provisions ConcernedArts. 13(2), 368, 245, 248, Schedule 7, List 1. Entry 97
Date of Pronouncement of Judgement 27/02/1967

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

In Punjab, a family named Henry and William Golaknath possessed 500 acres of agriculture. However, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act in 1953. A individual can only own 30 Standard acres (or 60 Ordinary acres) of land under the Act. As a result, the Golaknath family was compelled to give up the surplus land and was only permitted to keep 30 acres of it ( a few acres apart from the 30 acres of land would go to the tenants).[3]

The legitimacy of the 1953 Act was challenged in court by the Golaknath family. The family’s major point of contention was-

  • Their freedom to own property, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, was hampered by the 1953 statute.
  • They were also unable to pursue a career of their choosing due to the law.
  • Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees them equal protection under the law. Even this protection is also threatened by the Act. [4]

ISSUES RAISED:

(1) Is the Amendment a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution?

(2) Is it possible to modify Fundamental Rights?

Is the Amendment a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution?

The argument against the validity of the 1st Amendment in Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India was that Article 13 prohibits the enactment of a law infringing or abrogating the Fundamental Rights, and that the term “law” in Art. 13 would include any law, including a law amending the Constitution, and that the validity of such a law could be judged and scrutinised with reference to the fundamental rights it could infringe. There was a conflict between Arts. 13 and 368 in this case.[5]

Is it possible to modify Fundamental Rights?

No amount of earthly understanding can predict every possible event that may arise in the future. Nothing in the world can be static. Nature necessitates change. With the passage of time, a political society evolves. Changes and alterations are required in all parts of national life to meet new difficulties and challenges. As a result, it is impossible to draught a constitution that will meet the demands of the people in the future. Changes in circumstances will necessitate amendments to the constitution. A constitution that forbids future generations from amending it is likely to be destroyed and replaced. As a result, it is prudent to provide a mechanism for changing the constitution. The court had to decide whether the parliament has absolute power and authority to modify the constitution’s fundamental rights.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER

  • The petitioner claimed that the Indian constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly and that it is eternal. No one can amend or even attempt to change India’s constitution.
  • They contended that the term “amendment” in question merely refers to a change in the core structure, not a completely new concept.
  • The petitioner further claimed that the parliament could not take away the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the constitution. They are an important and integral aspect of the constitution; without them, the constitution would be like a body without a soul.[6]
  • Article 368 of our constitution, according to the petitioner, merely provides the mechanism for modifying the constitution. The parliament does not have the authority to modify the constitution
  • The petitioner’s final argument before the court was that Article 13(3)(aterm )’s of “law” encompasses all sorts of law, including statutory and constitutional law. And, because of Article 13(2), which states that the state cannot adopt any law that takes away the rights listed in Part 3, any constitutional amendment that does so will be unlawful and illegitimate..

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:

  • The respondent argued in court that the exercise of its sovereign power resulted in constitutional modification. This exercise of sovereign power is distinct from the legislative authority exercised by parliament in enacting legislation.
  • Our founding fathers never intended for our constitution to be inflexible. They have always wanted our constitution to be adaptable.[7]
  • The purpose of the amendment is to update the country’s laws as it sees proper for society. They contended that if there is no provision for revision, the constitution will become stiff and inflexible.
  • They also claimed that there is no distinction between basic and non-basic structure.
  • All of the provisions are equal in weight and significance. The constitutional clauses have no hierarchy.

JUDGEMENT:

The majority opinion of golakh Nath expresses scepticism about the path of parliament at the time. Since 1950, the parliament has used article 368 to adopt a number of laws that have violated part III of the constitution’s fundamental rights in one way or another. The majority were sceptical that if Sajjan Singh remained the law of the nation, all of our constituent assembly’s core rights would be modified through amendments. Concerned about the issue of fundamental rights and the possibility of a transition from democratic to authoritarian India. As a result, Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad were overridden by the majority.[8]

The 17th Amendment, according to Justice Subba Rao, violated the Constitution’s fundamental rights to acquire land and engage in any lawful profession provided to Indian citizens. The Supreme Court’s decision, however, had no bearing on the constitutionality of the 17th Amendment, and hence the 1953 law, because he applied the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling. However, Justice Subba Rao emphasised that the Parliament would no longer have the power to modify Part III of the Constitution, which deals with people’ fundamental rights. [9]

[1] I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs, Indian Kannon, (May. 17, 2022, 12.30am) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/

[2] Gurkaran Babrah, Golaknath, I.C v State of Punjab (1967) : Overview and Analysis, Blogipleaders, (May. 15, 2022, 11.40pm) https://blog-ipleaders-in.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/blog.ipleaders.in

[3] Golaknath Case, Byjus, (May. 17, 2022, 12.30am), https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/golaknath-case/

[4] Golaknath V. State of Punjab, Legalserviceindia,  (May. 18, 2022, 3.50pm), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l426-L.-C.-Golaknath-V.-State-Of-Punjab.html

[5]Shankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India, 1951 AIR 458

[6] Supra Note 2

[7] Supra Note 4

[8] Hemant Varshney, I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anrs. – Case Summary, Lawtimesjournal, (May. 19, 2022, 3.50pm), https://lawtimesjournal.in/i-c-golaknath-ors-vs-state-of-punjab-anrs-case-summary/

[9] I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab Case Analysis (Validity of 1st and 7th Constitutional Amendments and Scope of Article 13), Lawcirca, (May. 20, 2022, 7.20pm), https://lawcirca-com.cdn.ampproject.org/

Click Here to Download Blog Article in PDF