I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1643; (1967) 2 SCR 762

Introduction

The landmark case of I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab marks a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history. This 1967 Supreme Court judgment fundamentally reshaped the understanding of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly concerning fundamental rights. The case’s significance lies not only in its immediate impact but also in its lasting influence on constitutional jurisprudence.

Bench and Citation Details

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: February 27, 1967
Bench Strength: 11 Judges
Majority: 6:5 decision

Coram:

• Chief Justice K. Subba Rao
• Justice K.N. Wanchoo
• Justice M. Hidayatullah
• Justice J.C. Shah
• Justice S.M. Sikri
• Justice J.M. Shelat
• Justice C.A. Vaidialingam
• Justice G.K. Mitter
• Justice R.S. Bachawat
• Justice V. Ramaswami
• Justice V. Bhargava

Also Read: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

Background of the Case

Historical Context

The case emerged during a period of significant social reform in India, when the government sought to implement land reform legislation. This created tension between property rights and social welfare measures.

Facts

1. The petitioners, Golak Nath family, owned agricultural land in Punjab
2. Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, their land holding was declared excess
3. They challenged:
   • The constitutionality of the Punjab Act
   • The validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment
   • The power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights

Key Legal Provisions

1. Article 13(2): Prohibits laws that abridge fundamental rights
2. Article 368: Constitutional amendment procedure
3. Article 245: Parliament’s power to make laws
4. Article 246: Distribution of legislative powers
5. Entry 97, List I: Residuary powers of Parliament

Issues Before the Court

Principal Questions

1. Whether constitutional amendments fall within the meaning of “law” under Article 13(2)
2. Whether Parliament can amend fundamental rights
3. Source of Parliament’s amending power
4. Validity of the 17th Amendment

Court’s Analysis

Majority Opinion

Led by Chief Justice K. Subba Rao, the majority held:

1. On Constitutional Amendments
   • Amendments qualify as “law” under Article 13(2)
   • Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights through amendments
   • Amending power derives from Articles 245, 246, and 248
2. On Fundamental Rights
   • Occupy a transcendental position
   • Essential for human development
   • Cannot be abridged by Parliament
3. On Constitutional Harmony
   • Part III and IV form an integrated scheme
   • Social welfare possible without compromising fundamental rights

Minority View

The dissenting opinions emphasized:

• Distinction between constituent and legislative power
• Historical context of amendment powers
• Need for constitutional flexibility

Legal Principles Established

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights
   • Beyond Parliament’s amending power
   • Subject to judicial review
2. Prospective Overruling
   • First application in Indian law
   • Previous amendments remained valid
   • New principle applied prospectively
3. Constitutional Interpretation
   • Integrated reading of fundamental rights and directive principles
   • Emphasis on constitutional harmony

Impact and Significance

Immediate Effects

1. Limited Parliament’s amending power
2. Enhanced protection of fundamental rights
3. Led to 24th Constitutional Amendment

Long-term Influence

1. Foundation for Basic Structure Doctrine
2. Strengthened judicial review
3. Influenced constitutional interpretation

Critical Evaluation

Strengths

1. Protected fundamental rights
2. Introduced innovative legal concepts
3. Enhanced constitutional safeguards

Limitations

1. Potentially restricted social reform
2. Created legislative-judicial tension
3. Required subsequent constitutional amendments

Subsequent Developments

Legislative Response

• 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971
• Modified Article 368
• Clarified Parliament’s amending power

Judicial Evolution

1. Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
2. Evolution of Basic Structure doctrine
3. Refinement of fundamental rights jurisprudence

Conclusion

The Golak Nath judgment remains a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law. While its specific holding was later modified, its broader principles about protecting fundamental rights and limiting legislative power continue to influence constitutional interpretation. The case exemplifies the dynamic nature of constitutional law and the ongoing dialogue between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How did Golak Nath affect Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?

A: The judgment restricted Parliament’s power by holding that constitutional amendments could not abridge fundamental rights, as they fell within the purview of “law” under Article 13(2).

Q: What was the significance of prospective overruling in this case?

A: It marked the first application of prospective overruling in Indian law, allowing previous constitutional amendments to remain valid while applying the new principle to future cases.

Q: How does this case relate to the Basic Structure doctrine?

A: While Golak Nath didn’t directly establish the Basic Structure doctrine, its emphasis on protecting fundamental rights and limiting Parliament’s amending power laid the groundwork for the doctrine’s development in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

Reference: Indiankanoon