Case: Golaknath v. State Of Punjab
Citation: 1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762
Facts of the case
In the year 1953, Henry and William Golaknath, two farmers from Jalandhar, Punjab who owned around 500 acres of agricultural land, were confronted by the Punjab government and ordered to forgo 470 acres of their land holdings as under the recent “Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act 1953”, they would only be allowed to hold 30 acres. This meant that the 470 acres of land will be declared surplus and taken over by the government of Punjab.
This Act came after the 17th Constitutional Amendment which modified Article 31A and the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The Golaknath brothers, dissatisfied with this limitation, decided to contest the Punjab government's actions in the Family court, leading to the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court in 1965.
- Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act 1953: The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act of 1953 was a piece of legislation enacted in the Indian state of Punjab. The primary purpose of this act was to regulate the rights and obligations of landowners and tenants, particularly in the context of agricultural land.
- Post-Independence Agrarian Reforms: The period following India's independence saw a wave of agrarian reforms aimed at addressing issues of land ownership, tenancy, and ensuring social justice. Various states, including Punjab, implemented land reform measures to bring about equitable distribution of land and alleviate the agrarian crisis.
- Land Ceiling and Tenancy Regulations: The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act was part of the broader legislative framework that sought to address concerns related to large landholdings, absentee landlordism, and the rights of tenants.
Issues of the case
The petitioner’s contested the new Act under Article 32, claiming that the Act denies them the constitutional right to hold property and practise any profession [provided under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution]. It was before the courts to decide whether the parliament, through any act, can limit the rights given under the Indian Constitution. The court considered the broader issue of whether the Parliament possessed the authority to amend/limit Fundamental Rights under Article 368 through introduction of a new Act(s).
Furthermore, the court scrutinised the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioners, Henry and William Golaknath, argued against granting Parliament the power to amend or alter the Constitution of India. They contended that the term "amend" should only pertain to making minor adjustments, not an outright replacement or overhaul of a Fundamental Right. Further, they argued that Article 13 prohibits any state or central government from making any amendments that limit the rights mentioned under part III of the Constitution.
- Article 13(3)(a):Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that deals with the laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights. It plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the fundamental rights granted to Indian citizens and ensures that no law enacted by the legislature infringes upon these rights.
- Clause 3(a):This subclause clarifies that the term "law" in Article 13 includes not only existing laws (as mentioned in Clauses 1 and 2) but also any amendment to a law made by the legislature in the exercise of its constituent power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. In simpler terms, if there is any amendment made to the Constitution that violates or abridges the fundamental rights, Article 13(3)(a) ensures that such an amendment would also be considered void to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights.
Landmark Judgment:
On February 27, 1967, the Supreme Court, with its largest-ever bench at the time, delivered the judgement in favour of the Golaknath brothers by a slim 6:5 majority. The court held that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution were immune from amendments under Article 368. Further they stated that if any of such rights provided under part III are to be amended, a new constituent assembly must be convened for making a new constitution or radically changing it.
The court ordered that any “Amendment” to the Constitution of India is to be considered ordinary law and has to pass the test of Article 13, where in and individuals rights are being protected
This landmark decision marked a significant departure from the precedent set by the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), wherein the court had upheld Parliament's authority to amend all aspects of the constitution, including Part III relating to Fundamental Rights. Consequently, the Golaknath case resulted in Parliament losing its power to amend fundamental rights.
Consequences and Legacy:
The Golaknath case left an indelible mark on the constitutional history of India. It reinstated the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and reinforced the idea that these rights were beyond the reach of parliamentary amendments under Article 368. The decision established a precedent that shaped subsequent interpretations of constitutional law and set the stage for future legal battles over the scope of parliamentary authority.
The judgement, with its far-reaching consequences, played a crucial role in defining the limitations of parliamentary authority and reaffirming the sanctity of the Constitution as the foundational document of the Indian Republic.
