Case Summary: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 14

• Title: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
• Citation: 1967 SCC OnLine SC 14
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: K. Subba Rao, C.A. Vaidialingam, G.K. Mitter, J.C. Shah, J.M. Shelat, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, R.S. Bachawat, S.M. Sikri, V. Bhargava, V. Ramaswami
• Date of Judgment: February 27, 1967
• Relevant Provisions/Statutes: Validity of constitutional (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964; Constitution of India, 1949; Land Reforms Act, 1962

Introduction

The case of I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. decided by the Supreme Court of India on 27 February 1967 is a milestone in Indian constitutional history. It raised fundamental questions about the scope of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368, the sanctity of Fundamental Rights under Part III.

The judgment was delivered by the largest 11 Judge bench of the Supreme Court by 6:5 majority. It was a deeply divided decision that changed the trajectory of Indian constitutional law, eventually leading to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Brief Facts

The people filing the petition were Henry Golak Nath’s heirs. He had owned a lot of farmland in Punjab. After he passed away in 1953, they took over the property. Thing is, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act from that same year set strict limits on land holdings. The Financial Commissioner in Punjab figured out that more than 418 standard acres they held counted as surplus. It would all go to the state government.

They argued that the Punjab Act went against their basic rights- Article 14, Article 19(1)(f), Article 19(1)(g), and Article 31. So they filed a writ petition right in the Supreme Court under Article 32. Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, both dealing with land reforms and placed in the Ninth Schedule through the Seventeenth Amendment (1964).

Issues

1. Does Article 368 empower Parliament to amend or abridge fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution?

2. Whether a constitutional amendment is included within the meaning of the word “law” under Article 13(2)?

Arguments of the parties-

Petitioners Arguments-

• Article 368 does not give the power to the parliament to amend the Constitution. It only define the procedure.

• Even if Article 368 grants power, it must be interpreted with implied restrictions.

• Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that abridges fundamental rights.

• The word “law” in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments.

• Fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the constitution cannot be taken away by the parliament.

Respondent Arguments-

• Parliament has the sovereign authority to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights.

• Constitutional amendments are not subject to Article 13(2).

• Land reforms were essential for social justice, as required by the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).

• Social needs are changing in society so changes are required in the constitution otherwise the constitution would become too rigid or flexible.

Important Case laws referred-

1. Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (UOI)

2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

Related Provisions-

• Article 13(2) – The state shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void
• Article 14- Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article19 (f)- All citizens shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Now it has been omitted
• Article 19(g) – Right to freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business
• Article 31- Deals with the compulsory acquisition of property.
• Article 32- Right to constitutional remedies.
• Article 368 – article 368 gives the parliament the constituent power to amend any part of the constitution by means of adding new provisions or repealing or modifying existing provisions

Judgement-

This judgement was delivered by an 11-judge bench with a 6:5 majority. It was held by the Majority that Constitutional amendments fall within the meaning of law. Thus, Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment; it does not grant unfettered power. The amending power is subject to Article 13(2). Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged. Overruled Sankari Prasad (1952) and Sajjan Singh (1965) to that extent. However, applied the “doctrine of prospective overruling”: all constitutional amendments made before this judgment (including the 17th Amendment) would remain valid.

Minority held that Article 368 has unlimited amending power to amend any provision including the Fundamental Rights. Constitutional amendments are not ordinary laws, they exercise constituent power. Amendment not “law” under Article 13. Hence, Article 13(2) does not apply. The Court should not interfere in matters of socio-economic policy. Land reforms were essential for India’s progress.

Ratio Decidendi-

Constitutional amendments are “law” under Article 13(2). Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited; it cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights.

Final Decision-

The Seventeenth Amendment was upheld prospectively as it violate the fundamental rights of acquiring any land. Future amendments could not abridge or take away Fundamental Rights. The majority held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 and, therefore, subject to the limitations of Part III of the Constitution. The petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed its previous decisions which had upheld parliament’s power to amend all parts of the constitution, including part 3 related to fundamental right. The judgement left parliament with no power to curtail fundamental rights. 

Critical analysis of the Judgement-

Fundamental Rights are considered to be necessary for the development of human personality. According to the constitution, Parliament and the state legislatures in India have the power to make law within their respective jurisdiction.

But this power is not absolute in nature. The Constitution rests with the judiciary and the power to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws also rest with the judiciary. The parliament has the right to amend the fundamental elements of the basic structure but it cannot amend or change any of the fundamental elements of the basic structure.

If a law made by the Parliament or the state legislature violates any provision of the constitution, then the Supreme Court has the power to declare such law invalid, unconstitutional or ultra vires. Parliament was invested with the power to amend the Constitution.

Impact and Significance-

Curtailment of Parliamentary Power- For the first time, the Supreme Court restricted Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Birth of the Basic Structure Concept- Although not explicitly stated, the reasoning hinted at the Basic Structure Doctrine later formalized in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Protection of Fundamental Rights- The judgment elevated Fundamental Rights to a position of supremacy and permanence.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling- Introduced into Indian constitutional law for the first time. Prevented chaos by protecting past amendments.

Political Backlash- Parliament responded with the 24th Amendment (1971), explicitly affirming its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This triggered the constitutional showdown in Kesavananda Bharati.

Conclusion-

The Golak Nath case stands as a turning point in Indian constitutional law. It transformed the relationship between Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy. By holding that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights, the Court positioned itself as the guardian of individual liberties against majoritarian impulses.

Though later diluted by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, Golak Nath remains historically significant as the first case to seriously limit Parliament’s power and pave the way for the Basic Structure Doctrine, which continues to be the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

References-

1. https://lawbhoomi.com/golak-nath-v-state-of-punjab/

2. Golaknath, I.C v State of Punjab (1967) : Overview and Analysis

3. Golaknath Case 1967, Background, Judgement, UPSC Notes

4. GOLAKNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB 1967 AIR 1643,1967 SCR(2) 762 – Legal Vidhiya

5. I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 February, 1967– indian kanoon

6. I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (27.02.1967 – SC)– Manupatra Academy

7. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 14