I.C GOLAKNATH & ORS. Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

Introduction
In the Golak Nath and others Vs. State of Punjab case, the power of Parliament to amend the
fundamental rights was observed. In this special case, the doctrine of prospective over ruling
was drawn out and a restriction had been imposed for amending the fundamental rights. After
the Golaknath case, the SC held that the Parliament cannot amend Fundamental rights,
whereas after the Kesavanada Bharti case, the SC upheld the validity of the 24th amendment
holding amendment to Fundamental Rights as constitutional but simultaneously putting a
caveat of maintaining the basic structure.

Facts of the Case

The family of Henry and William Golak Nath held over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandar,
Punjab. In the face of the 1953 Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 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 was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the courts and
the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965.

The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground
that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any
profession (Articles 19(f) and (g)) and to equality before and equal protection of the law
(Article 14). They also sought to have the Seventeenth Amendment – which had placed the
Punjab Act in the Ninth Schedule – declared ultra vires.
Judgement:
In judgment on Feb 27, 1967, which overruled the rulings in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
cases, the Supreme Court by a majority of six to five ruled that Parliament had no power to
take away or abridge by the process of constitutional amendment any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. “These rights are given a transcendental position and kept
beyond the reach of parliamentary legislation”, the judgment said.
The Chief Justice, Justice K. Subba Rao, delivering the judgment for himself and four other
judges of the Supreme Court, dismissed the petitions by Golak Nath and others against the
State of Punjab. The constitution(First Amendment) Act,1951,the constitution (Fourth
Amendment) Act,1951,and the constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, a bridge
the scope of Fundamental Rights. But on the basis of earlier decisions of this court, they were
valid. On the application of the doctrine of prospective overruling this decision will have
prospective operation only therefore the said amendments will continue as valid. The power of
Parliament to amend the Constitution is derived from the articles 254, 246 and 248 of the
constitution and not from the article 368, which only deals with procedure. Amendment is a
legislative process. Amendment is “law” within the meaning of article 13 of the constitution
and, therefore, of it takes away or abridges the rights conferred by part III governing
Fundamental Rights, it is void. Parliament will have no power from the date of this decision to
amend any of these provisions of part III of the constitution so as to take away or abridge the
fundamental rights enshrined therein. As the constitution (seventeenth amendment) act holds
the field, the validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 and the Mysore Land
Reforms Act 1962 challenged in these proceedings cannot be questioned on the ground that
they offend articles 13, 14 and 31 of the constitution.

Justice Hidyatullah agreed with the chief justice, stated his conclusions in a separate
judgment as follows:
The Fundamental rights are outside the amending process if the amendment seeks to abridge
or take away any of the rights. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sanskari
Prasad and Sajjan Singh the power of amendment to Fundamental Rights were based on an
erroneous view. For abridging or taking away Fundamental Rights a Constituent Assembly
will have to be called. The court having laid down that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged
or taken away by the amendatory process, any further in roads into these rights as they exist
today will be illegal. The First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments being a part of the
Constitution by acquiescence for a long time cannot now be challenged the impugned Acts are
therefore valid, and the petitions must be dismissed.
Reasons

The reasons which prompted the majority to arrive at this decision are as follows:

1. According to the majority, the impugned Article 368 through which the parliament
was drawing power to amend the Constitution in fact merely laid down the procedure
of amending the constitution. The majority relied on the Marginal note of the earlier
Article 368 to arrive at this conclusion.
2. The majority located the power to amend the constitution in Article 248 of the
Constitution which provides for the Residuary power of Parliament. Since the
product of Article 248 is law, therefore, in majority’s opinion Amendment of
Constitution is “law” for the purposes of article 13(2) of Constitution.
3. The absence of word “amendment” in the definition of “law” was answered by the
majority in the form that the definition under Article 13(3)(a) is not exhaustive rather
it is inclusive.
4. Justice Hidayatullah, though writing a separately but agreed to CJI Subba Rao on the
point that there is no difference between legislative and amending process.

The reasons which prompted the minority to arrive at their stance are as follows:

1. The minority bench was fearful of the stance of majority in the sense that if majority’s
opinion becomes established law then it would grant tough rigidity to the
Constitution. They were sceptical that if Parliament is not provided with amending
competence the Constitution would become static & all the dynamic nature of
Constitution will meet death.
2. In accordance with the minority opinion although the procedure of Article 368 does
very much correspond to the legislative process but it is different from ordinary
legislation.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

The judgment inter alia provides for Prospective Overruling of the law laid down by this
Judgment. The decision to prospectively overrule earlier decisions was a smart and reasonable
move played by the Judiciary. The doctrine of prospective overruling implies that the effects of
the law to be laid down will be applicable on the future dates only i.e. past decisions will not be
affected by this decision. Prospective Overruling was chosen by the majority because of the
following reasons:

1. The majority in order to save the nation from the chaos of retrospective operation
and the judicial branch from multiple litigations that may follow after the decision
opted for prospective overruling. This was in order to minimize the negative impact
of the judgment invalidating the earlier constitutional amendments.
2. Another reason because of which the majority opted for prospective overruling was
since the decision in Golaknath was that parliament cannot amend Fundamental
rights, therefore, all of the previous amendments would be invalid and
unconstitutional. However, these amendments were in consonance & in strict
accordance with the laws laid down in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, therefore
they were valid as per the previous law.

Justice Hidayatullah also supported Prospective Overruling by opining that previous decisions
should not be affected by the ratio laid down by the present decision.

Aftermath
On April 7, 1967, just two months after Golaknath judgment Nath Pai M.P. from Rajapur
Constituency introduced a private member’s bill into Parliament to indirectly overrule the
decision. However, the bill failed to reach the floors of the house. The then Congress
Government led by Indira Gandhi won the elections with a huge majority in 1971. The Indira
Gandhi government with malicious intent to overrule whatever was laid down in Golaknath
passed the Constitutional 24th Amendment Act, 1971.
The Judgment in this case was overruled by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Vs
State of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973.