Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

The case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is one of the most landmark judgments in Indian constitutional law, primarily addressing the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, especially those provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This decision marked a pivotal moment in the evolving relationship between the legislature and the judiciary and significantly influenced the constitutional framework of India.

Background and Context

The controversy in this case arose from the tension between Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution and the citizens’ guarantee of fundamental rights. The dispute originated when the Golaknath family of Punjab, who owned over 500 acres of agricultural land, challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, which sought to impose ceilings on agricultural land holdings and redistribute surplus land to landless farmers.
The petitioners argued that these Acts, and the constitutional amendments that placed them in the Ninth Schedule to shield them from judicial review, violated their fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution. They contended that the Parliament did not have the power to amend or abridge fundamental rights.
The State of Punjab, on the other hand, maintained that Article 368 conferred upon Parliament an unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights Chapter.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The case involved the interpretation of several crucial provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely:

• Article 13(2): Prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights.
• Article 368: Lays down the procedure for amendment of the Constitution.
• Articles 19(1)(f) and 31: Relate to the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and protection against deprivation of property without authority of law.

The core question was whether the word “law” in Article 13(2) included a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Issues Before the Court

1. Does Parliament possess the power under Article 368 to amend Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees Fundamental Rights?
2. Is a constitutional amendment considered “law” under Article 13(2), and therefore subject to the limitation that it cannot abridge fundamental rights?
3. What is the scope and nature of the amending power of Parliament under Article 368?

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court delivered a narrow 6:5 majority decision on 27 February 1967. The majority, led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, held that Parliament has no power to amend or abridge Fundamental Rights.
The Court ruled that:

• The term “law” in Article 13(2) includes every kind of law—ordinary as well as constitutional amendments. Therefore, any amendment that seeks to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights would be void.
• Article 368 merely lays down the procedure for amending the Constitution; it does not confer upon Parliament the substantive power to amend.
• Fundamental Rights form the basic and inalienable feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed even by constitutional amendment.

The Court further invoked the prospective overruling doctrine for the first time in Indian jurisprudence. It declared that this decision would apply prospectively, meaning that constitutional amendments made before this judgment (such as the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments) would remain valid, but future amendments infringing fundamental rights would be invalid.

Dissenting Opinions

The five dissenting judges, including Justices Wanchoo, Bhargava, and Ramaswami, disagreed with the majority. They argued that:

• The power to amend the Constitution is a sovereign power inherent in Article 368 and not restricted by Article 13(2).
• The framers of the Constitution could not have intended to make the Constitution unamendable in respect of Fundamental Rights.
• Parliament, being the representative of the people, should have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, subject to the procedure prescribed under Article 368.

Significance of the Decision

The Golaknath ruling was a watershed in the constitutional evolution of India. It firmly limited the amending powers of Parliament, placing Fundamental Rights beyond the reach of legislative modification. This decision represented the judiciary’s strong assertion of constitutional supremacy and judicial review as essential elements of democracy.
However, the ruling also led to an immediate political and constitutional reaction. Parliament and the government viewed the decision as a serious restriction on their power to implement socio-economic reforms aimed at achieving the goals of equality and social justice enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Legislative Response and Aftermath

In response to the Golaknath judgment, Parliament passed several constitutional amendments to restore its amending authority:

• The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 explicitly affirmed that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It also amended Article 13 to clarify that a constitutional amendment would not be considered “law” within the meaning of Article 13.
• The 25th and 29th Amendments further strengthened parliamentary power, particularly in relation to property rights and land reform legislation.

These amendments eventually led to another historic confrontation between Parliament and the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Court evolved the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking a balance between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional limitations.

Doctrines Evolved

1. Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: Introduced for the first time in Indian law, this doctrine allowed the Court to apply its ruling only to future cases, avoiding retrospective invalidation of earlier amendments.
2. Judicial Supremacy: The case reaffirmed that the judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution and has the ultimate authority to interpret its provisions.
3. Supremacy of Fundamental Rights: The ruling elevated Fundamental Rights to a near-sacrosanct position in the constitutional hierarchy, making them immune from legislative alteration.

Critical Evaluation

The Golaknath judgment was widely debated in both legal and political circles. Supporters hailed it as a victory for individual liberty and constitutional morality, preventing majoritarian governments from undermining citizens’ rights. Critics, however, contended that the decision made the Constitution too rigid and hindered the government’s ability to pursue socio-economic reforms, especially land redistribution and poverty alleviation.
Legal scholars have also pointed out that while the judgment safeguarded civil liberties, it ignored the constitutional balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, which were meant to work in harmony.

Legacy and Continuing Importance

Despite being partially overturned by subsequent constitutional amendments and the Kesavananda Bharati ruling, Golaknath v. State of Punjab remains a cornerstone in India’s constitutional history. It marked a decisive phase in the doctrine of separation of powers and demonstrated the judiciary’s resolve to preserve the sanctity of Fundamental Rights.
The principles laid down in Golaknath continue to influence constitutional interpretation, serving as a reminder that the Constitution is a living document, whose basic features and essential values cannot be arbitrarily altered by transient political majorities.