Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab

Case Summary

• Case Name : Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab
• Case Reference: I.C. Golaknath and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anrs. (1967 AIR 1643; 1967 SCR (2)762
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Decision Date : February 27, 1967

Parties:

• Petitioner: I.C. Golaknath and Others
• Respondent: State of Punjab

Introduction

The case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab involved the Punjabi family of Henry and William Golaknath, who has more than 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. The suggestion in these circumstances was that, under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act passed as recently in 1953, the brothers retain only 30 acres each, give some to tenants, and declare the rest as ‘Surplus’. The case provoked a legal debate about the sincerity of constitutional promises, the power of Parliament, and whether the judiciary had a role to play in safeguarding individual rights. Principally, the question was whether it was lawful for the 17th Amendment Act to limit reviews of land reform laws by courts. The petitioners, among whom was Sri Sardar Sardar Singh Majithia, argued that the amendment violated their fundamental rights, especially on ownership of property, since Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution protects it. The divided bench of Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment, which opened the issue as how far Parliament can go in altering the basic structure of the constitution. The judgment, therefore, afforded the foundation for ‘basic structure doctrine’, transforming people’s perception of the constitution.

Facts of the Case

1. Amendment Concerns: It was a case or dispute challenging the legality of the 17th, 1st and 4th Amendments to the Indian Constitution.
2. Declaration of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners claimed that some of these amendments were illegal, particularly those which impinged on the Fundamental Rights protected by Part III of the Constitution.
3. The Specific Amendments at Issue: On one hand, through numerous aspects relating to various fundamental rights, it can be seen here that first and fourth amendments had an impact but seventeenth amendment sought to restrict right to ownership (Article 31).
4. Interpretation of Constitution: The most questions were over Article 368 of the Constitution, which consists of parliamentary power to amend even Fundamental Rights.
5. 17th Amendment made a huge turning point in the land reforms and property owners in the country as far as Article 31 are concerned it restricted the right of persons to have discretionary powers on their own pieces of land. It elicited debate on the proper ratio of private property right vis-a-vis states capacity in matters pertaining to redistributive legislations.

Legal Issues

1. Constitutional Validity of Amendments: This question was concerning the constitutionality of amendments 17, 1 and 4 to Indian Constitution, in relation to their impact on fundamental rights.
2. Interpretation of Article 368: The scope within which change in the Constitution can be effected through Parliament is what this article explains mainly in respect of Fundamental Rights.
3. The Constitution’s protection of fundamental rights and the ability for parliament to amend these rights through constitutional procedures are counterpoised against each other.
4. Doctrine of Basic Structure: The judgment subtly elaborated on the concept of basic structure doctrine under the Indian constitution by begging questions such as, “Can certain key features/ principles like fundamental rights never be removed under Article 368?
5. Detailed Comparative Analysis: It may be good to look at similar cases or basic rights in other jurisdictions to see how different legal systems protect fundamental rights and modify constitutions. By comparing such other problems, the unique challenges and principles faced by Indian constitutional law are pointed out.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments: 

1. Fundamental Rights Immutable: According to Golaknath, property rights under Article 31, are inherent in the constitutional structure and cannot be interfered with by constitutional amendment since they are of the very essence of protection to individual liberty and attainment of ordered liberty.
2. Constitutional Limitation on Amendment: It was urged that it is not open to Parliament under Article 368 declaring the procedure for amendment, to amend any part of the Constitution including the fundamental rights. These rights are inalienable and are beyond the reach of ordinary legislative or executive action, according to the constitutional fathers.
3. Judicial Review for Protection of Rights: It is expected of the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights, inclusive of those insulated by the judiciary, against legislative or executive actions, inclusive of constitutional amendments, which have a tendency to undermine or limit these rights.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Parliaments’ Sovereignty to amend: The advocate for the State of Punjab argues that Article 368 enables Parliament to change the Constitution according to modified circumstances or to meet the needs of the day.
2. Constitutional Amendments as Reflecting Popular Will: Parliament, being the people’s representatives, has the authority to modify the Constitution with respect to democratic will and national interests, effecting progressive reforms in the socio-economic domain.
3. Balance Between Rights and Directive Principles. If basic rights in the Constitution are to be conducive to State Policy Directive Principles, then it should also follow that amendments could even enhance such values for social equality and justice.

Court’s Analysis

In the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, certain fundamental constitutional questions relating to Parliament’s power for altering the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights as enumerated in Part III of the Constitution, have arisen before the Supreme Court of India.

Key Issues Addressed:

1. Constitutional Validity of Amendments: In this case, the court struck down the 17th, 1st, and 4th Amendments to the Constitution, especially those touching on property rights, as petitioners alleged on grounds of fundamental rights violation.
2. Article 368 describes the constitutional amendment method; it makes clear on the question whether, under the power to amend, Parliament extends towards the issue of modification of fundamental rights, or whether these inherent constraints guard against arbitrary legislative whips.
3. Although it clearly did not define what the Basic Structure Doctrine is, the Court’s reasoning did provide the framework for such development that may be said to have been implicitly accepted that there are certain basic ideas dealing with matter, such as fundamental rights that form the very base of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated, deleted, or diminished by any ordinary legislative process, including constitutional amendments.
4. Judicial scrutinize and Constitutional Supremacy: It said that the judiciary was the sentinel of the Constitution and, as such, had the duty to scrutinize legislative actions for inconsistencies with fundamental rights and constitutional core values. This was viewed as asserting constitutional supremacy against shifting parliamentary majorities,
5. While it accepted the competence of the State to carry out socio-economic reforms, it laid stress on the point that any amendment affecting the fundamental rights must reasonably strike a balance between the protection of individual liberty and the pursuit of social justice.

Court’s Decision

The historic judgment which changed the course of Indian constitutional law was delivered in Golaknath v. State of Punjab in 1967 by the Supreme Court of India.

Main points of the decision:

1. Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Amended: The Court logically held that fundamental rights are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It held that Parliament, while exercising its powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, cannot amend or cut down the fundamental rights, including the right to property under Article 19(1) (f).
2. The Court interpreted Article 368 as laying down the limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It explained that though Parliament is competent to amend certain provisions, even including those relating to Fundamental Rights, it has no power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution itself.
3. Doctrine of Basic Structure: This judgment laid down the Doctrine of Basic Structure, which holds that the basic features of democracy, the rule of law, and the establishment of fundamental rights are wholly beyond the reach of Parliament’s power to review or amend.
4. Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy: The judgment went even further in entrenching the position of the judiciary as protectors of the Constitution. It reiterated the need for courts, in their impartial capacity, to have assurance that legislative enactments lead to legislative acts being compatible with constitutional principles themselves and, secondly, not leading to an infringement of fundamental rights.

Influence:  Golaknath v. State of Punjab is the leading judgment in the history of Indian constitutional law and laid the basic groundwork for the subsequent cases, most importantly, Kesavananda Bharati in 1973, which finally led to the foundation for the Doctrine of Basic structure due to its indirect influence on later judicial evolutions as the judgment was not directly related to the challenged amendments.

Significance

The judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967, is of enormous significance in Indian constitutional law for a variety of reasons:

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: It made it clear that the fundamental rights are part of the very structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended by simple legislatives in the Parliament, thus making equality before protection from any transgression against individual liberty certain.
2. Golaknath, therefore, laid this doctrine of Basic Structure on the contention of the arguer in Kesavananda Bharati in 1973 that some of the basic principles pertinent to this Constitution, for example, democracy, the rule of law, secularism, and fundamental freedoms, are beyond Parliament’s power to change for ensuring stability and integrity to this Constitution.
3. Golaknath established the judiciary’s power as a check against legislative authority. The Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction to test and hence reject constitutional amendments, has violated fundamental rights and, by that very fact, retained constitutional supremacy to protect the citizen from all types of future legislative overreach.
4. Impact on Constitutional Amendments: The judgment became a catalyst for contentious debate over the extent of Parliament’s powers under Article 368 and future Constitutional amendments and court decisions, therefore inflicting further changes affecting basic rights.
5. Legal and Political Implications: The judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab gave rise to extensive debate pertaining to the balance between individual rights and welfare of society, with special regard to socioeconomic reforms. It brought out the challenge of balancing fundamental rights with constitutional directives of governmental policy.
6. The judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab was to remain a classic not only for research but also in the references for legal education and scholarship. It is one of the founding cases and has oriented contemporary understanding of constitutional ideas, judicial scrutiny, and the evolution of Indian constitutional law.

Conclusion

The judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967, was of an intellectually stimulating nature and has remained posters on Indian constitutional law, drastically altering fundamental rights and the course of legislative authority, most often in conflict with judicial review. It definitely reiterated the role of the judiciary as protector of the Constitution, where fundamental rights ought to be safeguarded against abusive legislation. This judgment thus firmly laid down that such rights are basic to the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by ordinary law. The doctrine of Basic Structure was not articulated here, though it supplied the concepts which provided a framework for later developments in the Constitution—in fact, all later developments on this aspect in the Constitution were found in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973.

References:

1. Legal Service India– C. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab. Retrieved from https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l426-L.-C.-Golaknath-V.-State-Of-Punjab.html#google_vignette
2. Indian Kanoon- I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/