Golaknath vs The State of Punjab (1967)

The Case in Brief

The case of Golaknath vs. The State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that examined the scope and limits of the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The appellant, Golaknath, challenged the Punjab Religious Institutions (Management) Act of 1959, which imposed state regulation on the administration and management of religious institutions, including Sikh Gurdwaras. Golaknath contended that these regulations infringed upon his constitutional right to freely practice his religion without interference.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the right to practice religion under Article 25 could be subjected to state regulation, and if so, the extent of such regulation. The state, on the other hand, justified the legislation as necessary for ensuring the proper management of religious institutions and the maintenance of public order, morality, and health.

The Supreme Court ruled in Favor of the State of Punjab, emphasizing that religious freedom was not an absolute right and could be reasonably restricted by the state in the interest of public welfare. The judgment affirmed the state’s power to regulate religious practices that conflicted with public order or societal interests, thereby establishing important precedents on the balance between individual religious freedoms and state intervention.

Detail of case

Case Title	Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
Case No	Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966
Date Of the Order	February 27, 1967
Jurisdiction	Supreme Court of India
Bench	Chief Justice K. Subba Rao and ten other judges
Appellant	I.C. Golak Nath & Ors.
Respondent	State of Punjab
Provisions Involved	Constitution of India, Article 13, and Fundamental Rights

The Factual Narrative

What Happened?

The Golak Nath vs State of Punjab case began in the early 1950s when the Parliament started amending the Constitution to implement various policies, including land reforms. Several constitutional amendments were enacted that had the potential to curtail fundamental rights, leading to concerns about the erosion of individual liberties.

The specific issue in Golak Nath vs State of Punjab arose when the Parliament passed the Seventeenth Amendment in 1964, adding several laws to the Ninth Schedule, thereby shielding them from judicial review. The Golak Nath family, which owned 30 acres of land in Punjab, challenged the Seventeenth Amendment, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights. They claimed that their right to property was undermined and that the Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights was not absolute. 

The Legal Principles and Precedents

1. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution: Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This article forms the foundation for the case, as Golaknath challenged the Punjab Religious Institutions (Management) Act on the grounds that it violated his right to religious freedom under Article 25.
   • Article 25(1): “Subject to public order, morality, and health, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion.”
   • Article 25(2): This clause allows the state to make laws for the regulation of religious practices if they affect public order, morality, or health.
2. Article 26 of the Indian Constitution: Article 26 grants every religious denomination or any section thereof the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and manage its own affairs. In this case, it was relevant because the appellant argued that the state’s regulation of religious institutions infringed upon the right to manage religious practices.
3. Punjab Agricultural Lands (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1950
4. Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution (Right to Property) 
5. Article 31 of the Indian Constitution (Just Compensation)
6. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution (Power to Amend the Constitution)

Additionally, the case has implications for other fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, such as:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality)
2. Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
3. Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Assembly)
4. Article 20 (Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences)
5. Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty)

Precedent cases: –

A.K GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS (1950)

CHAMAPAKAM DORAIRAJAN V STATE OF MADRAS (1958

SMT. UJJAM BAI V. STATE OF U.P(1961)

Issues of Golaknath vs State of Punjab

• Whether power to amend the Constitution resides in Art 368 or in residuary power of Parliament u/A 248 read with Entry 97, List-1.
• Whether the Fundamental Right in Part-III can be amended and abridged by the procedure in Art 368.
• Whether the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act is invalid for contravention of Art 13(2) of the Constitution of India.

Arguments of The Case

Arguments for the Petitioners (Golak Nath’s side):

1. Constitutional Amendments Cannot Violate Fundamental Rights:
   • The petitioners argued that the Parliament does not have the power to alter or amend fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. They contended that no amendment, however, can take away or alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Article 368 Cannot Alter the Constitution’s Basic Structure:
   • They claimed that although Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, it does not grant the power to destroy the fundamental principles or rights enshrined in it. This means that the Constitution’s essential features cannot be changed, and fundamental rights are included among these essential features.
3. Constitution is a Social Contract:
   • The petitioners viewed the Constitution as a social contract between the citizens and the state, with fundamental rights being the backbone of this agreement. They argued that these rights cannot be tampered with by any legislative amendments, as it would break the contract.
4. Judicial Review:
   • The petitioners emphasized that judicial review is essential to ensure that Parliament cannot infringe upon the rights of the people. The courts must be empowered to ensure that constitutional amendments do not violate these fundamental rights.

Arguments for the Respondents (State of Punjab’s side):

1. Parliament Has the Power to Amend the Constitution:
   • The respondents argued that under Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament is granted the power to amend the Constitution. There are no limitations on Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III (FR).
2. No Limitation on Amendment of Fundamental Rights:
   • The respondents contended that the Constitution does not impose any restriction on Parliament when it comes to amending Fundamental Rights. As per Article 368, amendments can be made to any part of the Constitution, including the modification of Fundamental Rights.
3. Basic Structure Doctrine is Unconstitutional:
   • The respondents opposed the idea of a “basic structure” doctrine. They argued that there is no constitutional basis for a “basic structure” doctrine, and Parliament has the unfettered power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
4. No Judicial Review of Amendments:
   • The respondents claimed that judicial review cannot be extended to amendments made by Parliament, as doing so would interfere with Parliament’s sovereign power. The legislature should not be constrained by judicial interference when making constitutional amendments.
5. Article 368 is Clear in Its Wording:
   • The respondents argued that Article 368 is explicit in granting Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. It is not subject to any limitations unless explicitly stated, and it is not the court’s role to impose limitations not mentioned in the Constitution itself.

Key Dates and Events in the Golaknath Case

1. 1959 – Land Reforms Legislation in Punjab:
   • Punjab Government passed land reform laws that were challenged in the courts. These laws aimed at redistributing land and were considered to infringe upon the right to property.
   • The Seventeenth Amendment (1964) was introduced by Parliament to validate certain state laws, including land reform laws, which had been challenged by property owners as violating the fundamental right to property.
2. 1964 – Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act:
   • The Seventeenth Amendment was passed by Parliament to validate certain laws in Punjab and other states related to land reforms. This amendment made laws related to land reforms immune from challenges in the courts on the grounds of violating the right to property under Article 31.
   • This amendment was central to the Golak Nath case because it was challenged on the grounds that it altered or abridged Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to property, without adhering to the Constitution’s safeguards.
3. 1965 – Golak Nath Files the Petition:
   • Golak Nath and other petitioners, whose land was affected by the Seventeenth Amendment, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutionality of the amendment. They argued that the amendment violated their Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution, especially the right to property (Article 31).
   • The petitioners’ primary contention was that Parliament did not have the power to amend or alter Fundamental Rights.
4. 1967 – Supreme Court Hearing and Judgment:
   • The Supreme Court of India heard the case and, in a significant decision, delivered its judgment on March 27, 1967.

Judgment of Golaknath V. State of Punjab

 Core Principles Established:

• The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment that Parliament does not have the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The Court held that the Fundamental Rights were an essential feature of the Constitution, and no amendment could abridge or alter these rights.

 Article 368 is Not an Absolute Power:

• The Court ruled that Article 368, which allows Parliament to amend the Constitution, shouldn’t be interpreted as granting Parliament the unrestricted power to change the basic structure of the Constitution. Specifically, the power to amend the Constitution does not include the power to amend or alter Fundamental Rights.

 No Unlimited Amendment Power:

• The Court emphasized that although Article 368 grants the power to amend, it does not permit amendments that affect the core values and basic structure of the Constitution. The Fundamental Rights were viewed as a core part of these values.

 Fundamental Rights as Part of Basic Structure:

• The Court held that Fundamental Rights form a core or basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be altered or amended by any constitutional amendment. The ruling was based on the belief that the protection of individual freedoms through these rights is central to the Constitution.

 Judicial Review:

• The judgment affirmed that Judicial Review was an essential feature of the Constitution and that the courts had the power to review constitutional amendments. If an amendment violated the Fundamental Rights, the courts would be entitled to declare it invalid.

 Case Precedents and Constitutional Interpretation:

• The Court referred to previous cases and constitutional principles while making its decision, emphasizing the idea that the Constitution is a social contract and the protection of Fundamental Rights is essential to maintaining the democratic nature of the Indian state.

Post-Golak Nath Case (1973) – The Kesavananda Bharati Case

1. • Although the Golak Nath judgment held that Fundamental Rights could not be altered by Parliament through constitutional amendments, this principle was later modified by the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
   • The Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which allowed Parliament to amend the Constitution but with the caveat that amendments could not alter or destroy its basic structure.
   • The Kesavananda Bharati decision also held that Parliament could amend the Constitution, but Fundamental Rights could not be entirely violated, and the basic structure of the Constitution should be preserved.

Conclusion

The Golak Nath v. State of Punjab case marked a critical turning point in the interpretation of the Constitution of India. The judgment established that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not extend to violating or altering the Fundamental Rights. The decision emphasized the essential nature of Fundamental Rights in preserving the democratic fabric of the nation and set the stage for future discussions on the balance between Parliament’s power and judicial review. While this decision was later refined by the Kesavan Anda Bharati case, it remains a foundational judgment in Indian constitutional law.