NEW LAW COLLEGE, BHARTI VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

ASSIGNMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED FROM:

NAME: RISHABH NEHRA

Mr. Pawan Mishra B.A.L.L.B 2 ND YEAR SEM 2
ROLL NO: 49
SECTION: A

TOPIC OF THE CASE:

I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs.

Background of the case:
The Punjab state government passed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,
1953. This law was passed with the intention of protecting landowners' and
renters' rights as well as regulating the transfer of agricultural land in Punjab. Its
features included prohibitions on the sale of agricultural property to non-
agriculturists in an effort to keep landowners from doing so.

I.C. Golaknath and his brothers were a Punjabi family who owned a substantial
amount of farmland, exceeding 500 acres. The new land ceiling imposed by the
Act significantly impacted their holdings. They were required to surrender a large
portion of their landholdings to the government. The petitioner in the case was
Mr. I.C. Golaknath, who was a resident of Punjab and a landowner affected by the
provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Golaknath challenged
the Act on the grounds that it violated his fundamental right to property
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution.

The Golaknath family claimed that the Punjab Land Act infringed upon their
constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. They believed that the statute
restricted their capacity to manage their land as a company and their right to own
property (which falls within their rights to conduct a profession).

Petitioner: C. GOLAKNATH & ORS.

V/S

Respondent: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/02/1967

Bench Composition: The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case was heard and
decided by a bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court of India:

1. Justice K. Subba Rao (Chief Justice)

2. Justice J.C. Shah

3. Justice K. N. Wanchoo

4. Justice M. Hidayatullah

5. Justice V. Ramaswami

6. Justice K.N. Sikri

7. Justice S.M. Sikri

8. Justice S.C. Roy

9. Justice C.A. Vaidialingam

10.Justice J.M. Shelat

11.Justice R.S. Bachawat

Case Citation: Golaknath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762

Facts of the Case:

In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, the dispute revolved around the
constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This Act,
enacted by the State of Punjab, aimed to regulate the transfer of agricultural land
within the state, imposing restrictions to safeguard the rights of tenants and
landowners. Mr. I.C. Golaknath, a resident of Punjab and a landowner affected by
the Act's provisions, challenged its constitutional validity before the Supreme
Court of India.
Golaknath's challenge primarily rested on the assertion that certain provisions of
the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act infringed upon his fundamental right to
property, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution. The
central constitutional issue that emerged from this case was whether the
Parliament possessed the authority to amend fundamental rights, particularly the
right to property. Golaknath contended that Parliament lacked the power to
amend fundamental rights and that any attempt to amend or abridge these rights
would be unconstitutional.

The case was brought before a larger bench comprising eleven judges of the
Supreme Court of India. Golaknath's legal counsel presented arguments
emphasizing the importance of protecting fundamental rights from legislative
encroachment. They relied on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Constitution,
which stipulates that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental
rights shall be void. Golaknath's argument drew from earlier Supreme Court
judgments, notably in the cases of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), which had upheld Parliament's power to
amend fundamental rights.

On February 27, 1967, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment in the
Golaknath case. By a majority decision, the Court held that Parliament did not
possess the power to amend fundamental rights. It ruled that any attempt to
amend the Constitution to abridge or take away fundamental rights would be
unconstitutional. This decision marked a significant turning point in Indian
constitutional law, establishing the doctrine of basic structure. According to this
doctrine, while Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot
alter its basic structure or fundamental features. The Golaknath case had far-
reaching implications for the interpretation of the Indian Constitution, particularly
regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the limits of parliamentary
power to amend the Constitution.

Question of the Law:

The Supreme Court of India considered a number of significant legal questions in

Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which had broad ramifications for how the
constitution is interpreted and how fundamental rights are safeguarded. The
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, was challenged on constitutional
grounds, and this posed a key question of whether the Act's provisions were in
line with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This
included determining whether the Act violated the constitutionally fundamental
right to property as stated in Article 19(1)(f).

The Court was also entrusted with establishing the boundaries of Parliament's
power to modify basic rights, especially in view of the clauses in Article 368 that
regulate the amendment procedure. This sparked more general concerns about
the limits of parliamentary authority and whether or not it is consistent with
upholding fundamental rights. The legal environment became even more complex
with the interpretation of Article 13 of the Constitution, which nullifies any laws
that conflict with basic rights. In addition, the Court had to address whether
earlier rulings—particularly those that supported Parliament's amending
authority—should be reexamined in light of the current situation.
Ultimately, the Golaknath case laid the groundwork for the development of the
doctrine of basic structure, establishing certain fundamental features of the
Constitution beyond the reach of parliamentary amendment. These questions of
law were central to the Court's decision and have had enduring significance in
shaping Indian constitutional jurisprudence.

Main Arguments:

Argument By Appellant:

1. The Petitioner argued that the Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(f)

guaranteed him the fundamental right to property was breached by
certain sections of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. He
claimed that his freedom to own, acquire, and dispose of property was
violated by the Act's prohibitions on the transfer of agricultural land.
2. He contested Parliament's ability to change fundamental rights. He
maintained that changing or restricting basic rights was not within the
purview of the modifying authority granted to Parliament by Article 368 of
the Constitution. He argued that as fundamental rights are the foundation
of the Constitution and are therefore untouchable, they cannot be
changed by legislative action. He argued that any attempt by Parliament to
amend fundamental rights would be in direct conflict with Article 13 and
would render such amendments unconstitutional and invalid.
3. Golaknath challenged the precedential authority of previous Supreme
Court judgments, particularly those in the cases of Shankari Prasad v.
Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), which
had upheld Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights. He argued
 for a reconsideration of these judgments in light of the evolving
constitutional principles and the need to protect fundamental rights from
legislative encroachment.
4. He emphasized the overarching goal of protecting constitutional principles
and preserving the foundational values of the Indian Constitution. He
underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of fundamental
rights and ensuring that parliamentary powers were exercised within the
confines of constitutional norms.

Arguments by Respondent:

1. The respondents argued that the Constitution, through Article 368,

grants Parliament the sovereign power to amend any provision,
including those related to fundamental rights. They emphasized that
the amending power was not limited by any implied restrictions.
2. The respondents contended that the Constitution wasn't intended to
be a rigid document. They argued that the framers envisioned the
possibility of amendments to adapt the Constitution to changing
societal needs and circumstances. Restricting Parliament's power to
amend fundamental rights would hinder this adaptability.
3. The respondents contended that as the highest legislative body,
Parliament is empowered to pass legislation that impact land rights,
provided that they are compliant with the constitution. They could
have claimed that the Punjab Land Act was an appropriate use of this
authority.
 4. The respondent emphasized that all constitutional provisions are
equal and lack any hierarchical arrangement and there is no inherent
superiority or inferiority among constitutional provisions, and each
provision is subject to amendment through the prescribed
constitutional process.
5. The Respondent argued that the main goal of constitutional
amendments is to ensure that the Constitution is still applicable and
responsive to the changing dynamics of governance and societal
advancement. They also aim to address the needs and aspirations of
society by bringing about the necessary changes in the nation's law.

JUDGEMENT:

The judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, delivered by the Supreme Court of

India on February 27, 1967, marked a significant milestone in Indian constitutional
law. The Court's decision in this landmark case established crucial principles
regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the limits of parliamentary
authority to amend the Constitution. By a majority decision of 6-5, the Supreme
Court held that Parliament did not possess the power to amend fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court ruled that any attempt by
Parliament to amend the Constitution to abridge or take away fundamental rights
would be unconstitutional.

Strict interpretation of Articles 13, 368, and other pertinent Constitutional clauses
served as the foundation for the Court's ruling. It underlined that the
Constitution, as the highest law of the land, guarantees the safeguarding of
individual rights against governmental intrusion and acts as a foundation for
governance. The majority ruling dismissed the claim that the amending authority
granted to Parliament by Article 368 encompassed basic rights. It claimed that
although Parliament might change certain parts of the Constitution, such the
legislative, executive, or administrative sections, it could not change or restrict
fundamental rights. The Court emphasized the significance of fundamental rights
in a democratic society, highlighting their role in safeguarding individual liberty
and dignity. It underscored the need to protect fundamental rights from arbitrary
legislative action, emphasizing that certain core principles of the Constitution
were immutable and beyond the reach of parliamentary amendment. The
majority opinion in Golaknath reaffirmed the expansive interpretation of Article
13 of the Indian Constitution. Article 13 declares that laws inconsistent with or in
derogation of fundamental rights shall be void. The Court held that any attempt
by Parliament to amend fundamental rights would be considered inconsistent
with Article 13 and thus void.

This interpretation emphasized the supremacy of fundamental rights within the

constitutional framework and underscored the need to protect them from
legislative encroachment.

The judgment laid the foundation for the development of the "basic structure"
doctrine in Indian constitutional law. While the Court did not explicitly use the
term "basic structure," it established the principle that there are certain
fundamental features or structures of the Constitution that cannot be amended
by Parliament. This doctrine implies that while Parliament has the power to
amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features.
The Golaknath case set the stage for subsequent cases, particularly the
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which further elaborated on and solidified the
basic structure doctrine.

Five judges dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that Parliament did
possess the power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368. They relied on
previous Supreme Court judgments, including those in the cases of Shankari
Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965),
which had upheld Parliament's amending power.The dissenting judges cautioned
against restricting Parliament's authority, highlighting the need for flexibility and
adaptability in the Constitution to address changing societal needs.

The Golaknath judgment had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional

law. It established important principles regarding the protection of fundamental
rights and the limits of parliamentary authority in amending the Constitution. This
case implicitly accepted the basic structure concept, which went on to become a
pillar of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It guarantees the upholding of
fundamental constitutional values even in the face of modifications and acts as a
check on parliamentary power. The judgment underscored the role of the
judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and fundamental rights. It affirmed
the judiciary's duty to interpret the Constitution and ensure that legislative
actions conform to constitutional principles.

By asserting the judiciary's authority to review constitutional amendments and

strike down those inconsistent with fundamental rights, the Golaknath case
reinforced the concept of judicial review as a bulwark against legislative excesses.
The judgment led to significant debates and discussions about the nature of the
Constitution, the role of the judiciary, and the balance of power between the
legislature, executive, and judiciary.

ANALYSIS:

The Golaknath ruling reiterated how crucial fundamental rights are to a

democratic society. It emphasized how important it is to protect these rights from
arbitrary modifications and interference from the government. This emphasis on
individual liberties, in my opinion, is essential to protecting citizens' autonomy
and sense of dignity. The case highlighted the role of the judiciary as the guardian
of the Constitution. By asserting its authority to review and strike down
constitutional amendments inconsistent with fundamental rights, the Court
demonstrated its commitment to upholding constitutional principles. This aspect
resonates with me as it underscores the judiciary's crucial role in ensuring
constitutional governance and protecting the rights of citizens. One noteworthy
development in constitutional jurisprudence is the Golaknath case. It cleared the
path for the creation of the basic structure theory and refuted earlier
interpretations of the legislative modifying power. This growth is a reflection of
the Indian Constitution's fluidity and flexibility in responding to shifting social
mores and legal advancements. The case sparked debates on the separation of
powers and the respective roles of the judiciary and the legislature. It raised
important questions about the limits of parliamentary authority and the extent to
which fundamental rights should be insulated from legislative interference. This
aspect prompts reflection on the need for a delicate balance between the
branches of government to ensure accountability and checks and balances.
Fundamental rights are seen to be important for the growth of a person’s
individuality. These are the rights that enable a guy to plan his or her own life in
the way that he or she desires. Our constitution guarantees us fundamental
rights, which include the rights of minorities and other underprivileged groups.
Parliament and state legislatures in India have the right to establish laws within
their respective domains, according to the Constitution. However, in nature, this
authority is not absolute. The judiciary is in charge of upholding the Constitution,
as well as adjudicating the constitutional legitimacy of all laws .The majority
decision was commendable in that it sought to safeguard Indian democracy from
the parliament’s oppressive actions. While the majority’s argument for their
actions, fear of India devolving into a dictatorship, is reasonable, why should it be
limited to fundamental rights? The precise degree to which the concept of
modification differs was one of the most crucial problems left unsettled by the
Golaknath judgement.”

The judgment had significant political and social ramifications, generating

widespread debate and controversy. It prompted discussions about the nature of
democracy, the rule of law, and the relationship between state and citizen. From
my perspective, this case serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of
constitutional principles in shaping the trajectory of a nation.

The Supreme Court has the authority to deem a statute passed by Parliament or
state legislatures to be unlawful, unconstitutional, or exceeding its authority if it
breaches any provision of the Constitution. Despite this check, the founding
fathers intended the Constitution to be a flexible charter rather than a strict
system of laws. They intended it to be a flexible text that could change or adapt to
the circumstances as they changed. Parliament was given the authority to make
changes to the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution appears to grant
Parliament complete and all-encompassing modifying authority over the text.
However, since independence, the Supreme Court has served as a check on
Parliament's ardent desire for legislation. The supreme court declared that
Parliament may not under the guise of modifying the Constitution distort, harm,
or change the fundamental elements of the document in order to uphold the
original goals that the constitution's framers intended to achieve. The
Constitution does not contain the term "basic structure." This idea was initially
acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case
of 1973.The parliament has the right to amend anything but it can not amend or
change any of the fundamental elements of the basic structure. The majority
believed that the parliament was drawing power of amendment from article 368
whereas this article only provides the producer of an amendment. The majority
said that the power to amend an article of the constitution is under article 248.
The minority’s opinion was that if the decision came in favour of the majority then
the constitution will become rigid. And if the parliament will not have the power
of amending the constitution then the constitution would become static. In
accordance with the minority opinion, the procedure of Article 368 very much
corresponds to the legislative process but it is different from ordinary legislation.

The judgement provided the prospective overruling of the law. The decision to
overrule the earlier judgements was an important, smart and reasonable move by
the judiciary of the country. This doctrine of the prospective ruling said that the
effects of the law will only be applicable on future dates or future judgements.
Past decisions will not be get affected by it.
There was a reason why the majority chose the doctrine of the prospective ruling:

They wished to prevent several lawsuits that might have been brought after this
ruling. To avoid the turmoil of retroactive action, the majority likewise decided on
this. Additionally, they sought to lessen the possibility that this ruling would
invalidate earlier constitutional modifications. This was done in an effort to lessen
the bad effects of the ruling that declared the previous constitutional changes
unlawful. The finding that the parliament has no authority to change the
fundamental rights in this instance means that all prior amendments are null and
void and unconstitutional, which is another reason why the majority opted for
potential overruling.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, I would agree with the judgement. The Golaknath judgment

affirmed the paramount importance of fundamental rights in a democratic
society. By restricting Parliament's authority to amend fundamental rights, the
Court strengthened the protection of individual liberties enshrined in the
Constitution. The case showcased judicial activism and the willingness of the
judiciary to safeguard constitutional principles. The Court's assertion of its
authority as the guardian of the Constitution underscored the judiciary's crucial
role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability. The basic structure
theory, which protects the preservation of fundamental constitutional values and
acts as a check on legislative power, was developed as a result of the Golaknath
case. This theory has improved Indian constitutional jurisprudence by ensuring
consistency and stability in constitutional interpretation.
But the judgement had some negative consequences also. This judgment led to
political turmoil and uncertainty, as it challenged the authority of Parliament to
amend the Constitution. The case sparked debates and controversies, creating
tensions between the judiciary and the legislature. Legislative reform and
advancement may have been hampered by the Golaknath ruling's narrow view of
the parliamentary amending power. The ruling might have made it more difficult
to pass the laws that are required to deal with urgent social challenges because it
limited Parliament's ability to change basic rights and it introduced uncertainty
and ambiguity regarding the scope of parliamentary authority and the limits of
judicial review. The development of the basic structure doctrine raised questions
about the balance of power between the branches of government and the proper
interpretation of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case created political unrest and
sparked worries about legislative paralysis and legal ambiguity, but it also
increased the protection of fundamental rights and the judiciary's role in
enforcing constitutional norms. The case consequently has a complex impact on
Indian democracy and constitutional administration, with both positive and
negative ramifications.