🏛 Golaknath Case (1967) – Landmark Judgment on Constitutional Amendments
📌 Introduction
The Golaknath Case (1967) was a historic Supreme Court ruling that changed India's constitutional landscape. It questioned the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights and set the stage for future legal battles over constitutional amendments.
This case significantly impacted judicial review, parliamentary power, and the Basic Structure Doctrine, making it a crucial judgment in Indian legal history.
📜 Background of the Case
🔹 Petitioners: Henry and William Golaknath (owners of farmland in Punjab).
🔹 Respondents: State of Punjab.
🔹 Key Issue: Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
Context:
The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of agricultural land in Punjab. The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1953, limited landholdings to 30 acres per person, with the rest declared "surplus land" for redistribution. The Golaknath family challenged this law, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Right to Property (Article 19 and 31).
The case raised a crucial constitutional question:
"Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?"
⚖ Key Constitutional Provisions Involved
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 13 | Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void. |
| Article 19 | Right to Freedom, including the right to property. |
| Article 31 | Right to Property (later removed in 1978). |
| Article 368 | Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. |
⚔ Arguments by Both Sides
📝 Petitioners (Golaknath Family):
✅ Fundamental Rights are sacred and unchangeable.
✅ Article 368 only provides the procedure for amending the Constitution, not the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✅ Parliament cannot destroy or take away Fundamental Rights.
🏛 Government’s Argument (State of Punjab):
✅ Parliament is supreme and has absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
✅ Previous judgments in Shankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965) upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✅ The Constitution is dynamic and must evolve with changing needs.
⚖ Supreme Court Judgment (1967)
| Bench | 11-Judge Constitutional Bench |
|---|---|
| Chief Justice | Justice K. Subba Rao |
| Verdict | Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. |
🔹 Key Observations by the Court
✔ Fundamental Rights are essential and beyond Parliament's reach.
✔ Article 368 does not grant power to amend Fundamental Rights, only the procedure.
✔ Amendments are "law" under Article 13, so they cannot violate Fundamental Rights.
✔ Judicial supremacy over Parliament is necessary to protect citizens' rights.
📌 Final Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Golaknath family, stating that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✅ Overruled the Sajjan Singh (1965) and Shankari Prasad (1951) cases.
🚫 Declared constitutional amendments violating Fundamental Rights as unconstitutional.
🌟 Impact of the Golaknath Judgment
| Impact | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Limited Parliament’s Power | Parliament could no longer amend Fundamental Rights. |
| Strengthened Judicial Review | Supreme Court became the guardian of Fundamental Rights. |
| Led to the 24th Amendment (1971) | Indira Gandhi’s government restored Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. |
| Paved the way for Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) | Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. |
📜 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) – Government’s Response
✔ Passed by Indira Gandhi’s government to nullify Golaknath's verdict.
✔ Amended Article 368, explicitly giving Parliament the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
✔ Introduced Article 13(4), stating that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged under Article 13.
This led to another historic case in 1973 – Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
⚖ Comparison: Golaknath Case vs. Kesavananda Bharati Case
| Feature | Golaknath Case (1967) | Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) |
|---|---|---|
| Verdict | Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but cannot alter the Basic Structure. |
| Effect on Article 368 | Restricted Parliament’s power. | Allowed amendments with limitations. |
| Outcome | Judicial supremacy over Parliament. | Balanced power between Judiciary and Parliament. |
🔍 Landmark Cases Related to Golaknath Judgment
| Case | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights. |
| Sajjan Singh (1965) | Reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights. |
| Golaknath (1967) | Overturned previous cases, restricting Parliament’s power. |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Introduced Basic Structure Doctrine, partially overruling Golaknath. |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Further strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine. |
🔥 Criticism of the Golaknath Judgment
❌ Restricted Parliament’s flexibility in amending the Constitution.
❌ Created a constitutional deadlock between Parliament and Judiciary.
❌ Ignored the dynamic nature of governance and social change.
❌ Led to excessive judicial intervention in legislative matters.
🌟 Conclusion
The Golaknath Case (1967) was a turning point in Indian constitutional law. It protected Fundamental Rights but also triggered political and legal conflicts over constitutional amendments.
💡 Key Takeaways:
✔ Strengthened Judicial Review over Parliament.
✔ Led to Kesavananda Bharati Case & Basic Structure Doctrine.
✔ Resulted in the 24th Amendment, restoring Parliament’s power.
✔ Set the foundation for constitutional democracy and checks & balances.
While the judgment was later modified, it remains a historic case in the evolution of Indian constitutional law.
🚀 “A Constitution is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
❓ FAQs on Golaknath Case
🔹 Q1: What was the main issue in the Golaknath Case?
✅ Whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
🔹 Q2: What did the Supreme Court decide?
✅ Parliament has NO power to amend Fundamental Rights.
🔹 Q3: How did the Government react to the verdict?
✅ Passed the 24th Amendment (1971) to restore Parliament’s power.
🔹 Q4: How is this case related to the Kesavananda Bharati Case?
✅ Kesavananda Bharati Case partially overruled Golaknath and introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
🔹 Q5: Why is the Golaknath Case important?
✅ It shaped India’s constitutional framework, judicial supremacy, and amendment powers.
COMMENTS