I. C. GOLAKNATH AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB
CITATION: 1967 AIR 1643.
PETITIONER: I.C Golaknath & ors.
RESPONDENT: State of Punjab.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 27/02/1967.
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, Vashishth,
Mitter, G.K, Vaidyalingam C.A.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In Jalandhar, Punjab, Henry and William Golaknath owned
about 500 acres of agriculture. The government ruled that the brothers could
maintain just thirty acres each under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act,
with a few acres going to renters and the rest declared excess. The family of Golaknath
disputed this in the courts. In addition, in 1965, this matter was sent to the
Supreme Court. The family filed a petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution, alleging that the Punjab Act of 1953 violated their
constitutional rights to acquire and keep property, practice any profession
(Article 19 [1](f)
and (g)), and to equality before the law (Article 14[2]). They wanted the
seventeenth amendment, which put the Punjab Act in the ninth schedule, declared
unconstitutional. One of the most important cases in Indian history is
Golaknath. I.C v State of Punjab. The court established jurisprudence around
the idea of basic structure with its decision in this case. In 1967, the
Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not limit any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by India's constitution.
ISSUES
INVOLVED:
The main issue involved in the case which came for
pronouncement before the court was that; “whether the parliament has the
absolute power and the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under
the constitution or not”?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
·
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 only refers to a
change in the core structure, not a completely new concept.
·
Furthermore,
the petitioner argued that the parliament could not take away the fundamental
rights guaranteed in 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.
·
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)(a) [3]of the Constitution's
definition of "law" encompasses all sorts of law, including statutory
and constitutional law. And, because of Article 13(2), which states that the
state cannot enact legislation that restricts the rights enumerated in Part 3,
any constitutional change that restricts the Fundamental Rights will be
unlawful and illegitimate.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
·
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 wished for our constitution to be flexible.
·
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
further argued that there is no such thing of basic structure and non-basic
structure.
·
All of
the provisions are equal in weight and significance. The constitutional
provisions do not have a hierarchy.
JUDGEMENT:
In this case, the supreme court had the largest bench
ever at the time. The majority of the judges ruled in favour of the
petitioners, with a 6:5 ratio. The majority judgement was written by the CJI at
the time, along with other justices (J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, and
C.A. Vaidiyalingam). Because Justice Hidayatullah concurred with Chief Justice
of India Subba Rao, he wrote a separate decision. Justices K.N. Wanchoo,
Vishistha Bhargava, and G.K. Mitter filed a joint minority opinion, while
Justices R.S. Bachawat and V. Ramaswami submitted separate minority views.
The majority of golakh Nath's opinion expresses
skepticism regarding the conduct of parliament at the time. Since 1950, the
parliament has used article 368 to approve a number of laws that have violated
part III of the constitution's fundamental rights in one way or another. The
majority of people were skeptical that if Sajjan Singh remained the law of the
country, all of our constituent assembly's core rights would be changed 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.
The majority of people believe that parliament does not
have the authority to change fundamental rights. These are fundamental rights
that are exempt from parliamentary regulation. As a result, in order to protect
democracy from parliament's dictatorial activities, the majority ruled that
parliament cannot modify the fundamental rights established in Part III of the
Indian Constitution. The majority of people believe that fundamental rights and
natural rights are the same thing. These rights are critical for a person's
growth and development.
CONCLUSION:
One of the most important cases in Indian history was
Golakh vs. Punjab. This case's decision came at a critical juncture. It arrived
at a time when India's democracy was reeling from the onset of the country's
"darkest decade." This decision aided in preventing the parliament
from displaying its tyranny. The majority bench was concerned about the constitution's
soul deteriorating. This ruling prohibited the parliament from infringing on
citizens' fundamental rights by enacting legislation that had the effect of
reducing the chamber's authoritarianism.
The court's decision focused on safeguarding fundamental
provisions that are equal to fundamental or natural rights of mankind, which no
government may take away. Golaknath is a "rule of law" victory in the
sense that it demonstrated that even legislators are not above the law. This
case reaffirmed citizens' belief that the law is ultimate, not the one who
creates it, implements it i.e.,Executive, or interprets it i.e.,Judiciary.
But nothing in our world is flawless. The same can be
said about this decision. Golaknath's decision is not without flaws. One of the
most serious problems in the decision was that it gave the constitution
rigidity. If an amendment is required, the court stated that it must be done
through a constituent assembly. Second, the court only protected fundamental
rights from the parliament's absolute power, although it could have preserved
all of the constitution's core elements. They did not take use of the occasion
in the best way possible. Because of these flaws in the decision, it was
partially overruled in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India [4]in 1973.
[1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
[2]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/
[3]https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6521-article-13-of-indian-constitution-easy-explanation.html#:~:text=Article%2013(3)(a,laws%20that%20violate%20fundamental%20rights.
[4]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/257876/
0 Comments