ABSTARCT:
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case (1967) is a landmark ruling by India’s Supreme Court that addressed the question of whether Parliament has the authority to alter Fundamental Rights granted under Part III of India’s Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court held evenly that Parliament could neither amend or change the Fundamental Rights, which were declared unalterable by ordinary changes under Article 368. The ruling established an important precedent for the interplay between constitutional amendment provisions and the preservation of basic rights.
INTRODUCTION:
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case is regarded as one of the most significant constitutional rulings in India. It developed during Punjab’s land reforms, when the state government introduced legislation aimed at restricting agricultural land ownership. The petitioners, including the Golaknath family, said that the statute infringed their constitutional rights, particularly their right to property. A fundamental constitutional issue in this case was whether the Indian Parliament could modify Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. This case was significant because it tested the limitations of Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution and the extent to which Fundamental Rights may be affected through legislative revisions. The verdict eventually limited Parliament’s ability to change Fundamental Rights, paving the way for future constitutional discussions.
CASE BACKGROUND:
The case originated from the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953, which was intended to pursue land reforms in the state of Punjab. The law sought to reduce the concentration of land in the hands of a few by limiting land ownership and dispersing land among landless peasants and farmers.
The petitioners, including Golaknath and others, were landowners who argued that the Act violated their fundamental rights under the Constitution’s Articles 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, and so on) and 31 (protection of property rights). The petitioners claimed that the state statute was illegal and violated their freedom to own property.
The primary question in the case was whether Parliament could change the Fundamental Rights entrenched in Part III of the Constitution to accommodate such regulations. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where the question of whether Parliament had the authority to amend the Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments was to be decided.
FACTS:
The Petitioner’s Challenge:
The petitioners, including the Golaknath family, owned agricultural land in Punjab. The Punjab Security for Land Tenures Act, 1953, which sought to diminish landholdings beyond a certain level, was challenged by the petitioners as unconstitutional.
The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953:
Given that the Golaknath case (1967) dealt directly with land reforms in Punjab, the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, was a major factor. The 17th Amendment to the Indian Constitution (1964), which placed Punjab’s Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, onto the Ninth Schedule and granted it protection from judicial scrutiny, was challenged in the Golaknath case. In order to provide landless tenants with greater security, this Act was a part of a broader land reform program that restricted the authority of Punjabi landlords to regulate tenancy.
The law was viewed as a component of initiatives to reduce land concentration, enhance tenant welfare, and redistribute land.
In the Golaknath case, Golaknath and the other petitioners contended that the 17th Amendment, which shielded the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act about judicial review, infringed upon their fundamental rights, specifically those guaranteed by Article 20 (protection of particular liberties regarding the freedom of speech, assembly, etc.) and Article 14 (right to equality). In support of legislative land reforms, the Supreme Court was urged to rule on whether Council had the authority to alter the Constitution in a way that would change can impair fundamental rights, such as those related to property that are safeguarded by Article 31 of the Constitution (security of property).
The matter became even more complex since Parliament attempted to avoid judicial review by putting the Act in the ninth chapter, thereby avoiding judicial examination. The petitioners argued that the safeguarding of fundamental rights, in particular, was breached by such an amendment to the Constitution. The Punjab Security on Land Tenure Act was among the laws that the Supreme Court essentially said did not trump the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, highlighting that Parliament was not able to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 considering that these rights were outside the purview of regular constitutional amendments.
The Golaknath case established the principle that fundamental rights were outside the purview of Parliament’s amending authority, which raised concerns about the constitutionality of land reform laws that violated these rights even though it did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. Although the Golaknath ruling was later overturned by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976, which gave Parliament more power to amend the Constitution’s provisions, including fundamental liberties, with certain restrictions, this case had a significant impact on how reforming land laws and persons constitutional privileges were balanced in India.
The constitutional issue:
The main question before the Court was whether Parliament has the ability to modify Fundamental Rights under Article 368 of the Constitution.Parliament has already changed the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, through legislation such as the First Amendment (1951), which limited several fundamental rights to allow for land reforms.
The petitioner’s argument:
The petitioners argued that any alteration to the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 would be unlawful and that Parliament lacked the authority to do so.They maintained that the Parliament could not change the Fundamental Rights since they were an integral element of the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
The respondent’s argument:
The State of Punjab and the Union Government contended that any law passed in the exercise of Parliament’s authority to modify the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was lawful.They maintained that Parliament has the power to change any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
The constitutional debate:
The main legal question was whether Parliament has the authority to change the Fundamental Rights under Article 368, which addresses the process for modifying the Constitution.This highlighted the conflict between Parliament’s amending authority and the Constitution’s guarantee of fundamental rights.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held by a 6-5 majority ruling that Article 368 of its Constitution does not grant Parliament the authority to change basic rights. The Court ruled that constitutional modifications could not change or restrict basic rights, which were outside the purview of Parliament’s modifying authority. The Court stressed that these rights formed the “basic structure” of the Constitution and were a fundamental aspect of it. Therefore, changing or violating the fundamental rights protected in Part III of the Constitution’s charter was not within the scope of Parliament’s authority to change the Constitution within Article 368.
The judgment effectively overturned earlier rulings, such as the Shankari Prasad case and the Sajjan Singh case, which had allowed Parliament to amend fundamental rights. The Golaknath ruling concluded that no amendment of the Constitution could violate the basic structure, including the protection of fundamental rights. The 42nd Amendment (1976), which expressly granted Parliament the power to change any provision of the Constitution, especially fundamental liberties, subject to specific restrictions, ultimately overturned the ruling. The Golaknath case, which established a precedent for the fundamental framework theory and was subsequently upheld in the trial of Kesavananda Bharati (1973), is nevertheless regarded as a seminal ruling in Indian constitutional law.
SIMILAR CASE LAWS :
- Shankari Prasad V Union Of India (1951) :
Issue : One of the first instances to examine Parliament’s authority to change the Constitution, particularly with reference to Part III’s fundamental rights, was the Shankari Prasad case. The First Amendment (1951), having limited the reach of Article 19 and permitted land reform regulations, was contested by the petitioners as unconstitutional.
Judgement : The Supreme Court maintained Parliament’s authority to change any provision of the Constitution as a whole, including the protection of basic rights. It concluded that Parliament has the power to change the Constitution under Article 368, and that this power also applies to basic rights.
Relation to Golaknath case : The Golaknath judgment later overturned this one, holding that lawmakers could not change basic rights.
- Sajjan Singh V State of Rajasthan (1965) :
Issue : In the Sajjan Singh case, the petitioners contested whether the Constitution’s 17th Amendment, which contained land reform legislation within the Ninth Schedule, infringed upon fundamental rights.
Judgement : The Court upheld the decision of the Shankari Prasad case, holding that Article 368 gave Parliament the authority to change basic rights. It underlined that Parliament has the capacity to change the Constitution, including its provisions pertaining to basic rights.
Relation to Golaknath case : This case, like Shankari Prasad, was reversed in the Golaknath case, wherein the Court decided that Parliament could not change basic rights.
CONCLUSION :
A key concept of Indian constitutional law was established by the Supreme Court’s landmark Golaknath case (1967): Parliament cannot modify fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Court decided that these rights are not subject to Article 368 modifications because they are a component of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. Prior rulings regarding the Shankari Prasad as well as Sajjan Singh instances, which had permitted Parliament to modify basic rights, were reversed by this decision.
The Court underlined how crucial it is to defend individual liberties against legislative intrusion by stating that Parliament cannot change or restrict basic rights. The Golaknath case is noteworthy for introducing the idea of the doctrine of basic structure, which later played a crucial part of the case involving Kesavananda Bharati (1973), even if the 42nd Amendment (1976) ultimately overturned this ruling and gave Parliament the authority to amend fundamental rights. The notion that some constitutional concepts are unassailable was reinforced.
References :
Books :
- Constitutional law of India – JN Pandey
- Indian Constitutional Law – MP Jain
FAQ :
- What was the Ruling in the Golaknath case ?
In a 6-5 majority ruling, the Supreme Court held that Article 368 of the Constitution prohibits Parliament from changing basic rights. The Court ruled that regular constitutional modifications could not change fundamental rights since they were an integral element of the Constitution’s core framework.
- Was the Golaknath case overruled ?
Yes, the Golaknath ruling was expressly overturned by the Constitution’s 42nd Amendment (1976). With limited restrictions, the amendment granted Parliament the authority to change any provision of the Constitution, especially fundamental rights. The political along with legal climate of the day prompted this modification.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY SYED TAUHEED 4TH YEAR B.A LL.B FROM VIDYAVARDHAKA LAW
