IC Golaknath vs State of Punjab
1967 AIR 1643
Case Summary
[Fundamental Rights]
[Amendment to the Constitution]
Facts
The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of farmland in Punjab. Under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, the government sought to declare a portion of their land as "surplus," reducing the family's landholdings. The Golaknath family challenged this, arguing that the state could not limit their right to hold property, as it infringed on their fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Issues
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution?
Does the scope of Article 368 include the power to amend Fundamental Rights?
Relevant Legal Provisions
Article 13: Any law violating Fundamental Rights is void.
Article 368: Grants the Parliament power to amend the Constitution.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, in an 11-judge bench decision, held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. It ruled that Fundamental Rights are "transcendental" and beyond Parliament’s amending power, as specified in Article 368. The Court invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling, applying the ruling to future amendments, and this judgment restricted Parliament’s power to change Fundamental Rights unless a new Constituent Assembly was convened. This precedent held until the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, partially overruling Golaknath.
Rishita Vanjani
Comments