Golaknath vs State of Punjab - Ignition of Fire between the Parliament & the Supreme Court

In the last blog of this series, I talked about the most controversial criminal case of 1960's and how it changed our Indian legal system. Moving ahead towards another landmark case which left its mark - Golaknath vs State of Punjab.

This case is known for three things -

• Firstly, it was the very first case in which the question of amendment of Fundamental Rights arose and indeed ignited the cold war between the Parliament and the Supreme Court.

• Secondly, the doctrine of Prospective Overruling was first adopted in our legal system; and

• Thirdly, for the controversial 24th Amendment which followed the judgment of this case.

Let me give you all a small background that surrounded this case -

In today’s time, the Fundamental Rights enshrined in our Constitution are more detailed and clearly explained. But this was not the case in 1960's. During that time Fundamental rights were easily twisted to the wish of the Parliament. And then this case showed up on the doors of Supreme Court which gave an air to the fire burning between the Parliament and the Supreme Court which was supposed to be kept burning for decades to come. What was this case about? Let’s see-

Facts of the Case:

There was a family of Henry and William Golak Nath who held over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab. During that phase the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 was passed under which the state government held that the brothers could keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants and the rest was declared 'surplus'. This surplus land was to be acquired by Government.

This very provision was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the court. The case went on for more than 12 years before it was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965, as it involved question of law. The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the Punjab Security and the Land Tenures Act,1953 on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property under Article 19(1)(f) [*this Article was removed from Constitution in 1978 but it was still in force when this case was heard in 1965*] and practice any profession and to equality before under Article 19(1)(g). They also raised the question of equal protection of the law under Article 14.

Reference to Supreme Court in 1965 and issues raised:

The case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The case was heard before Constitutional Bench of 11 Judges including then Chief Justice of India K.Subba Rao. The main questions that were raised before the Supreme Court in this case -

• Whether Amendment is a “Law” under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

• Whether Fundamental Right can be amended.

Judgement passed:

Before this case was heard, Supreme Court in one of the earlier case had declared that - Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution which even included the Fundamental Rights. But in this case, the Judges looked from the more accurate angle and by the Majority of 6:5 declared that the Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution but not the Fundamental rights and therefore the Parliament has no power to change the Fundamental Rights.

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:

Now the doctrine at first reading seems very confusing. But it is as clear as water. This doctrine was first introduced in India in this case. It basically means that when any decision of the Supreme Court is passed and this doctrine is invoked, the decision would only affect the future changes in law and it won’t affect the laws or changes in law that were passed before decision of this case.

It was cleared that this case’s decision will only affect the future amendments and not the amendments already passed. This in turn gave blanket protection to the 17th Amendment that was challenged in this very case for going against the Fundamental Right. The court cleared that 17th Amendment will remain valid but if any amendment in future were to affect the Fundamental Right then that amendment shall be unconstitutional and declared void.

Aftermath:

The decision of this case did not go well with the Parliament and in retaliation they passed the 24th Amendment in 1971 which expressly gave the Parliament power to amend any part of Indian Constitution including Fundamental Right.

This was the landmark case for the reason that it started a cold war between the Parliament and the Supreme Court with respect to the Amendment of the Fundamental Rights and this was continued in the next landmark case which fully changed the outlook of our Constitution, as we all know! I will be discussing about it in my next blog.

Do share your opinion with us regarding this case. If you like to connect with us, then subscribe to our website and follow us on social media.

Till then - Stay Safe, Stay Healthy, OM SHANTI.