CASE REVIEW: I.C. GOLAKNATH v.

STATE OF PUNJAB (1967 AIR

1643)

6.5 LAND LAWS (REVENUE)

Submitted by

Jaiverdhan Singh

UID- UGJ21-19

B.A.LL.B. (Honours in Adjudication and Justicing)

Semester-VI

Academic Session – 2024-25

Submitted to

Mr. Kailas Vasave

(Assistant Professor of Law)

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................2

FACTS OF THE CASE...........................................................................................................3

ISSUES RAISED......................................................................................................................4

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER........................................................4

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT......................................................5

JUDGMENT.............................................................................................................................6

ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................6

2
 INTRODUCTION

In the landmark case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court of India
grappled with the critical question of whether the Parliament had the authority to amend
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
argued vehemently that such powers were beyond the reach of Parliament, asserting the
sanctity and immutability of these fundamental rights. The crux of the petitioners' argument
rested on the belief that fundamental rights were sacrosanct and formed the bedrock of Indian
democracy. They contended that allowing Parliament to tamper with these rights would
undermine the very essence of constitutional governance and the democratic principles
enshrined within it. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the State of Punjab,
argued for a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution. They posited that the framers of
the Constitution did not intend for it to be rigid and unamendable. Instead, they argued that
the Constitution should evolve with the changing times and societal needs, and that
Parliament should have the authority to make necessary amendments, even to fundamental
rights. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, sided with the petitioners. It held that
Parliament did not possess the power to amend fundamental rights under Part III of the
Constitution. This decision was a watershed moment in Indian legal history, establishing a
precedent that the fundamental rights were inviolable and beyond the purview of legislative
amendment. Nevertheless, this ruling was later reconsidered and modified by the Supreme
Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973). In Kesavananda Bharati,
the Court introduced the doctrine of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. It held that
while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, it
could not alter its basic structure. The basic structure doctrine essentially serves as a
safeguard against arbitrary amendments that would fundamentally alter the essence of the
Constitution and undermine its foundational principles, such as democracy, federalism,
secularism, and the rule of law. Therefore, while the Golaknath case initially established a
rigid stance on the amendment of fundamental rights, the subsequent evolution of
jurisprudence, particularly through the Kesavananda Bharati case, introduced a more nuanced
understanding that balanced the need for flexibility with the preservation of the Constitution's
core values.

3
 FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1953, the Punjab state government passed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,
aimed at redistributing agricultural land to address issues of land inequality. This law was
subsequently shielded from judicial review by being included in the Ninth Schedule of the
Constitution through the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1964. Henry and William
Golaknath, who owned a significant tract of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab, found themselves
affected by this legislation. The Act limited their landholding to thirty acres each, with the
remainder declared as surplus land for redistribution. Feeling aggrieved, the Golaknath
family challenged the Act in court, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights under
Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to
hold property and practice any profession, trade, or business without unreasonable
restrictions. Their case eventually reached the Supreme Court in 1965, where they filed a
petition under Article 32, seeking the protection of their constitutional rights. This legal battle
underscored the tension between the state's authority to enact land reform measures for social
justice and the individual's right to property enshrined in the Constitution, leading to
significant legal deliberations and ultimately influencing constitutional jurisprudence in India.

ISSUES RAISED

The case involved these important legal issues

 Whether the parliament by law can amend the fundamental rights or not?
 Whether such amendment is a law under Article 13(2) of the Constitution?
 Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner in the Golaknath case made a compelling argument centered on the
inviolability of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. They
contended that these rights were not mere statutory provisions but formed the very essence
and soul of the Constitution, without which it would be devoid of its foundational principles.
Central to their argument was the assertion that the Constitution, as drafted by the constituent
assembly, was meant to be permanent and immutable, embodying the fundamental values and

4
ideals of the nation. Any attempt to alter these values through amendment would undermine
the basic framework of the Constitution itself. The petitioner emphasized that Article 368,
which outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, did not confer upon Parliament
the authority to amend the Constitution in a manner that could dilute or infringe upon
fundamental rights. Instead, it was argued that the amendment process should only serve to
refine or clarify the existing principles without introducing entirely new concepts inconsistent
with the Constitution's foundational ideals. Moreover, the petitioner drew attention to Article
13(3)(a), which states that any law that contravenes fundamental rights is void to the extent of
the inconsistency. By including constitutional amendments under the purview of Article
13(3)(a), the petitioner argued that any amendment encroaching upon fundamental rights
would be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. In essence, the petitioner posited that
while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution, including Part III, it could not
do so in a manner that violated or undermined the core principles and values upon which the
Constitution was founded. This argument laid the groundwork for the Supreme Court's
eventual ruling in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which initially held that Parliament could not
amend fundamental rights.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

The State of Punjab's response in the Golaknath case emphasized the sovereign nature of the
power to amend the constitution, distinct from ordinary legislative authority. They contended
that this power was essential for accommodating the evolving needs of society, preventing
the Constitution from becoming overly rigid and outdated. Asserting the equality of all
constitutional provisions, Punjab argued against the notion of fundamental rights enjoying a
special status or superiority over other parts of the Constitution. From their perspective, all
provisions were equally important and subject to amendment as deemed necessary by the
legislature. Moreover, Punjab rejected the concept of a "basic structure" of the Constitution,
arguing that such a distinction between essential and non-essential elements lacked legal
basis. They maintained that all parts of the Constitution were subject to amendment without
limitations beyond those expressly provided for in Article 368. This stance reflected a more
flexible interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for adaptability to changing
societal circumstances and rejecting any implied restrictions on the amending power of
Parliament. However, the subsequent evolution of constitutional jurisprudence, particularly
through cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, introduced the concept of the basic

5
structure doctrine, establishing limitations on Parliament's power to amend certain
fundamental aspects of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

In the landmark Golaknath case judgment on February 27, 1967, the Supreme Court
assembled its largest bench ever, with a ratio of 6:5 in favour of the petitioners. This ruling
overturned previous decisions in the Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases, which held that
no part of the Constitution was beyond the scope of amendment by Parliament. Contrary to
earlier rulings, the Golaknath judgment declared that Parliament could not diminish or
eliminate any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution through the process of
constitutional amendment. The Court maintained that while Parliament could amend various
provisions of the Constitution, including Article 368 itself, it could not touch the fundamental
rights enshrined in Part III. This decision marked a significant departure from the previous
understanding, as the Court held that the amendment process outlined in Article 368 did not
extend to fundamental rights. Instead, any alteration to these rights would necessitate the
convening of a new constituent assembly to draft a new constitution or substantially modify
the existing one.

ANALYSIS

The Golaknath vs. state of Punjab was one of the important cases in India history. The
judgment of this case came at a very crucial time. It came when the democracy was affected
by the beginning of what later became the “darkest decade” of India. This judgment helped to
prevent the parliament from showing its autocracy. The majority bench was scared of
worsening of the soul of the constitution. This judgment forbade the parliament from causing
any damage to the fundamental rights of the citizens by implementing a law which had the
effect of suppressing the autocracy of the parliament. But there’s nothing perfect in this
world. The same goes with this judgment. The judgment of Golaknath is not a perfect
judgment. One of the biggest flaws was that the judgment granted rigidity to the constitution.
The court said if there has to be an amendment then it has to be through a constituent
assembly. Secondly, the court only protected the fundamental rights from the absolute power
of the parliament but it could have protected all the fundamental features of the constitution,
However, including all the pros and cons of the judgment, the judiciary was able to show the
Parliament that there is some institution that is watching over and guarding the Constitution.