Introduction:
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case in the history of Indian constitutional law. It dealt with the issue of the power of the Indian Parliament to amend the Constitution and curtail the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The judgment had far-reaching consequences and led to the enactment of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.
Background of the case:
case arose from a dispute over the constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Act aimed to regulate the transfer of agricultural land in Punjab and prevent the concentration of land in the hands of a few individuals or corporations. The Act was challenged on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
Pre-case year:
Before the Golaknath case, the Indian judiciary had taken a narrow view of the amending power of the Parliament. The Supreme Court had held in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) that the Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. The Court had also held in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) that the Parliament could amend the Constitution and abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights.
Legal question raised in the case:
whether the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution and curtail any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Court had to determine whether the fundamental rights were amendable
whether they formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution and could not be amended even by the Parliament
An excerpt from there argument which states :
The power to amend the Constitution does not include the power to abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The fundamental rights are not ordinary provisions of the Constitution but are the basic features of the Constitution, which cannot be amended even by the Parliament. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Parliament, being a creation of the Constitution, cannot act in a manner that is contrary to the Constitution. Any attempt by the Parliament to abridge or take away the fundamental rights would be unconstitutional and void.
This argument was made by the petitioners in the case, who challenged the constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. They argued that the fundamental rights were the basic features of the Constitution and could not be curtailed even by an amendment to the Constitution.
Post-case year and development:
The Golaknath case had far-reaching consequences and led to significant developments in Indian constitutional law. Here are some of the important post-case year and developments:
24th Amendment to the Constitution: In response to the Golaknath case, the Indian Parliament passed the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1971. The Amendment clarified that the Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, provided that such amendments did not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Golaknath case paved the way for the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which was first articulated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Doctrine holds that the Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the fundamental rights.
The Golaknath case led to the expansion of fundamental rights in India. The Supreme Court, in subsequent cases, has interpreted the fundamental rights in a broad and progressive manner, to include rights such as the right to privacy, the right to clean environment, and the right to access to justice.
The Golaknath case marked the beginning of judicial activism in India, where the judiciary played an active role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in subsequent cases, has intervened in matters such as environmental protection, human rights, and corruption, where the executive and legislative branches have failed to act.
Conclusion
In this landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that addressed the limits of the amending power of the Indian Parliament. The case raised the legal question of whether the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution could be curtailed through constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights were not ordinary provisions but formed the basic structure of the Constitution and could not be abridged or taken away even by a constitutional amendment. The decision had far-reaching implications and led to significant developments in Indian constitutional law, such as the enactment of the 24th Amendment, the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine, the expansion of fundamental rights, and the emergence of judicial activism. Therefore, the Golaknath case marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of Indian constitutional law and reinforces the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws and actions must conform to its provisions.
Written By HARSHIT YADAV ,COLLEGE : Chanderprabhu jain college of higher & school of law affiliated with GGSIPU, DELHI Course : BBA.LL.B (Hons.) SEMESTER : 6th
