Background and Context
The case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that addressed the extent of Parliament\’s power to amend the Constitution. This case is significant as it set a precedent on the issue of constitutional amendments, particularly concerning fundamental rights.
Petitioners and Arguments
The petitioners, led by I.C. Golaknath, challenged the validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which imposed certain restrictions on the ownership and management of agricultural land. They argued that the Act violated their fundamental rights under Article 19 (right to property) and Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights.
Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court had to address the following key issues:
- Whether Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.
- Whether the amendments made to the Constitution, which affected fundamental rights, were valid.
Supreme Court\’s Judgment
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on February 27, 1967, ruled by a narrow margin (6-5) that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising eleven judges, reflecting the significance of the case.
Key Points of the Judgment
- Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: The Court introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in Indian judicial history. This meant that the decision would not apply retroactively but only to future cases.
- Article 368 Interpretation: The Court interpreted Article 368 of the Constitution, which deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The majority opinion held that while Article 368 granted the power to amend the Constitution, this power did not extend to amending the fundamental rights.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Court emphasized that fundamental rights were transcendental and inviolable, forming the core of the Constitution. As such, they could not be abridged or taken away by an amendment.
Impact and Significance
The judgment in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab had a profound impact on constitutional law in India. By ruling that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, the Supreme Court placed significant limitations on the scope of constitutional amendments. This decision prompted a re-examination of the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
Subsequent Developments
The Golaknath decision was eventually overruled by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Court upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but introduced the \”basic structure\” doctrine, which prevents Parliament from altering the basic structure of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The I.C. Golaknath case is a landmark in Indian constitutional history, marking a crucial moment in the judiciary\’s efforts to protect fundamental rights against legislative encroachment. While its specific rulings were later modified by subsequent judgments, its legacy in shaping the discourse on constitutional amendments and fundamental rights remains significant.
Research resources
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358
https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/polity/golaknath-vs-the-state-of-punjab
https://blog.ipleaders.in/golaknath-c-v-state-punjab-1967-overview-analysis/
🎓🚀 Hey, Attention law students!
Ready to level up your game?
Say goodbye to missed opportunities
Get instant updates on internships, jobs, and law Competitions.
Join our vibrant legal community with 5000+ members already onboard!
Click here for WhatsApp Groups (Click HERE) and Telegram Channel (Click HERE). and get timely updates.
Don’t wait, join the coolest legal crew now! 📲🌟
Discover more from Lawfer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.