Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

The case of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762) stands as a landmark decision in the constitutional history of India. Decided by an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, it addressed the scope and limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The judgment marked a crucial turning point in the development of Indian constitutional law, laying the groundwork for the later Kesavananda Bharati ruling that established the doctrine of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

Background and Context

The background of the case lies in the ongoing constitutional tension between the fundamental rights of citizens and Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution. In the 1950s and 1960s, a series of constitutional amendments were enacted to implement land reform measures aimed at redistributing agricultural land and abolishing the zamindari system. These reforms were intended to promote social and economic equality but often conflicted with the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.
To protect such reform laws from judicial scrutiny, Parliament introduced several constitutional amendments, including the First (1951), Fourth (1955), and Seventeenth (1964) Amendments. The Seventeenth Amendment, in particular, inserted various land reform statutes into the Ninth Schedule, making them immune to challenge on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
The petitioners in Golak Nath, led by Henry and William Golak Nath, were landowners in Punjab whose lands were affected by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962. They challenged the validity of these laws, arguing that they infringed upon their fundamental rights to property and that the constitutional amendments protecting such laws were invalid.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The principal question before the Supreme Court was:“Does Parliament have the power under Article 368 to amend fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?”
Subsidiary questions included:

• Whether the power to amend the Constitution is derived from Article 368 or from the constituent power of Parliament under Article 245.
• Whether fundamental rights form an essential and inviolable part of the Constitution.
• Whether earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), correctly interpreted the amending power.

Arguments of the Parties

For the Petitioners (Golak Nath Family): The petitioners contended that:

• Fundamental rights are sacrosanct and transcend the ordinary legislative power of Parliament.
• Article 13(2) expressly prohibits the State from making any law that abridges or takes away fundamental rights, and the term “law” includes constitutional amendments.
• The amending power under Article 368 is procedural, not substantive; it prescribes only the method for amendment, not the power to amend.
• Parliament, being a creature of the Constitution, cannot act as a constituent body with unlimited authority.

For the Respondents (State and Union of India): The State argued that:

• Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is plenary and includes the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• A constitutional amendment is not a “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2) and, therefore, cannot be challenged on the ground of violating fundamental rights.
• The previous decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh had correctly upheld the supremacy of the amending power.

The Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 27 February 1967 by a narrow majority of 6:5, holding in favour of the petitioners.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, held that:

• Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution, which contains the Fundamental Rights.
• Article 13(2) applies to constitutional amendments, meaning any amendment that abridges or takes away a fundamental right is void.
• The power to amend the Constitution is not found in Article 368 but derives from the general legislative powers of Parliament under Article 245.
• The word “law” in Article 13(2) includes amendments to the Constitution.
• To preserve constitutional stability, the ruling would apply prospectively. Hence, amendments made prior to this judgment (including the 1st, 4th, and 17th) would remain valid.

The minority opinion, led by Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Wanchoo, disagreed, maintaining that:

• The power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is plenary and distinct from the ordinary legislative power.
• Fundamental rights are not beyond the reach of constitutional amendment.
• Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary laws, not to constitutional amendments.

Significance of the Decision

The Golak Nath ruling was revolutionary in its interpretation of the amending power. It established the principle that Parliament could not curtail or abridge fundamental rights, thereby giving them an almost immutable status. This decision temporarily halted Parliament’s efforts to reshape the Constitution to achieve socio-economic reforms, particularly in land redistribution and economic planning.
The case also represented the Supreme Court’s assertion of judicial supremacy and the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. It drew a distinction between constituent power (to frame the Constitution) and legislative power (to make laws under it), arguing that Parliament only possesses the latter.

Aftermath and the 24th Amendment

The Parliament reacted strongly to the Golak Nath verdict, viewing it as a judicial encroachment upon its sovereign powers. To reassert its authority, the 24th Amendment Act, 1971 was enacted, explicitly stating that Parliament has the power to amend “any provision” of the Constitution under Article 368 and that such amendments shall not be considered “law” within the meaning of Article 13.
This amendment effectively nullified the immediate impact of the Golak Nath judgment. However, the core question of whether Parliament’s amending power was unlimited persisted, ultimately leading to the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) decision, which introduced the basic structure doctrine — a compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial protection of fundamental rights.

Legacy and Legal Influence

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab remains one of the most significant constitutional cases in India for several reasons:

• It was the first case to directly restrict Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• It emphasised the supremacy of fundamental rights and the limited nature of parliamentary power.
• It set the stage for the later evolution of the basic structure doctrine, which has since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

The judgment also reflected the philosophical shift in constitutional interpretation — from viewing the Constitution as a flexible instrument subject to political will, to recognising it as a higher legal document with unalterable core values.