I. C. Golaknath & Ors V. State Of Punjab

 

Case Comment

 

I. C. Golaknath & Ors V. State Of Punjab

 

Appellant: I.C. Golaknath and Ors.

 

Respondent: State of Punjab

 

Citation: 1967 AIR 1643

 

Date of Judgement: 27/02/1967

 

Judges Bench: Subba K. Rao (C.J.), K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri,

R.S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, J.M. Shelat, Vishishtha Bhargava, G.K. Mitter, C.A. Vaidyialingam

 

Introduction:

Golaknath v. State of Punjab is one of the landmark cases in Indian legal history. A number of questions were raised in this case. But the most important issue was whether the parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India or not. The petitioners contended that the parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights whereas the respondents contended that the constitution-makers never wanted our constitution a rigid and Non-flexible one. The court held that the parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. This ruling was overturned in Kesavananda Bharati vs Union of India 1973. In this, the court held that the parliament can amend the constitution including fundamental rights but the parliament cannot change the basic structure of the constitution.

 

Facts of the Case:

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 can not curtail any of the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution of India.

 

Contention of Parties:

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1.   The petitioner argued that the constitution of India was drafted by the constituent assembly and it is of permanent nature. No one can change or can try to bring change in the Constitution of India.

2.  They argued that the word “amendment” in question only implies a change in accordance with the basic structure but not altogether a new idea.

3.   Further, the petitioner contended that the fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the constitution cannot be taken away by the parliament. They are the essential and integral part of the constitution without which Constitution is like a body without a soul.

4.  The petitioner also argued that Article 368 of our Constitution only defines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It does not give the power to the parliament to amend the Constitution.

5.   The last thing on which the petitioner argued before the court was that Article 13(3)(a) in its definition of “law” covers all types of law i.e. statutory and constitutional etc. And by virtue of Article 13(2), which says that the state cannot make any law that takes away the rights mentioned under Part 3, any constitutional amendment which takes away the Fundamental Rights will be unconstitutional and invalid.

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1.   The respondent contended before the court that constitutional amendment is a result of the exercise of its sovereign power. This exercise of sovereign power is different from the legislative power which parliament exercises to make the laws.

2.   Our Constitution makers never wanted our constitution to be rigid in its nature. They always wanted that our Constitution to be flexible in its nature.

3.   The object of the amendment is to change the laws of the country as it deems fit for the society. They argued that if there won’t be any provision for amendment then, it would make the Constitution a rigid and non-flexible one.

4.  They further argued that there is no such thing as basic structure and non-basic structure.

 

5.    All the provisions are equal and of equal importance. There is no hierarchy in the constitutional provisions.

Issues Involved:

 

1.  The issue which came before the court was whether the parliament has the absolute power and the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution or not?

2.  Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 is ultra vires?

 

 

Judgement of the Honourable Court:

In this case, at that time the supreme court had the largest bench ever. The ratio of the judgment was 6:5, the majority favouring the petitioners. The CJI at that time and with other justices (J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidiyalingam) wrote the majority opinion. Justice Hidayatullah agreed with CJI Subba Rao and therefore he wrote a separate opinion. Whereas Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava and G.K Mitter they all wrote single minority opinion and justices R.S. Bachawat & V. Ramaswami wrote separate minority opinions.

 

The majority opinion of Golakh Nath shows scepticism in their minds about the then-course of the parliament. Since 1950 the parliament has used article 368 and have passed a number of legislations that had in one or another way violated the fundamental rights under part III of the constitution. The majority had doubts that if Sajjan Singh remained the law of the land, a time can come when all fundamental rights adopted by our constituent assembly will be changed through amendments. Keeping in view the problem of fundamental rights and fearing that there can be a transfer of Democratic India into totalitarian India. Therefore, the majority overruled Sajjan Singh & Shankari Prasad.

 

The majority said that the parliament has no right to amend the fundamental rights. These are fundamental rights are kept beyond the reach of parliamentary legislation. Therefore, to save the democracy from the autocratic actions of the parliament the majority held that parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India The majority said that fundamental rights are the same as natural rights. These rights are important for the growth and development of a human being.

 

Conclusion:

The Golakh v. the State of Punjab was one of the important cases in India’s history. The judgement of this case came at a very crucial time. It came when democracy was suffering from the start of what later became the “darkest decade” of India. This judgment helped to stop the parliament from showing its autocracy. The majority bench was afraid of the deterioration of the soul of the constitution. This judgement forbade the parliament from causing any damage to the

fundamental rights of the citizens by implementing a law that had the effect of suppressing the autocracy of the parliament.

 

The judgment was focused on protecting the fundamental provisions which are equal to the fundamental or natural rights of mankind and no government can take it. Golaknath is a kind of victory of the “rule of law” because it made it clear that even the lawmakers are not above the law. This case reinforced the faith of the citizens that the law is supreme, not the one who makes it(Parliament), neither who implements it (Executive) and nor the one who interprets it (Judiciary).

 

But there‘s nothing perfect in this world. The same goes for this judgment. The judgement of Golaknath is not a perfect judgement. One of the biggest flaws was that the judge granted rigidity to the constitution. The court said if there has to be an amendment then it has to be through a constituent assembly. Secondly, the court only protected the fundamental rights from the absolute power of the parliament but it could have protected all the fundamental features of the constitution. They did not use the opportunity in a way they could have used. Due to these kind of problems in the judgement it was overruled to some extent in another landmark judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India 1973.