Why in the News?
The Golaknath case (IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967) is one of the most important judgments in India’s constitutional history. It was the first time the Supreme Court said that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
About the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case:
- Case Name: IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history.
- Background: The Golaknath family from Punjab challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which declared their land surplus under land ceiling laws.
- Claim of Violation: They argued the law violated their Fundamental Right to property, protected under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
- Ninth Schedule Issue: The Act was placed under the Ninth Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment, making it immune to judicial review.
- Main Legal Question: Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, or are such amendments invalid under Article 13(2)?
- Arguments: The petitioners claimed Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct, while the government asserted Parliament’s full power to amend the Constitution.
- Supreme Court Verdict: On February 27, 1967, in a 6:5 majority, the Court held that:
- Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
- Amendments are “law” and subject to Article 13(2).
- The ruling would apply only prospectively, not to past amendments.
- Overruled Judgments: The decision overturned earlier rulings in Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964) that allowed unrestricted amendments.
Article 13 of the Constitution of India
Article 13 is a key provision under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that any law violating Fundamental Rights can be declared void. It is the constitutional basis of judicial review in India.
Main Provisions of Article 13
Article 13(1)
All pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become void to the extent of inconsistency.
Article 13(2)
The State cannot make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. Any such law is void to the extent of violation.
Article 13(3)
Defines “law” broadly. It includes:
- Ordinances
- Rules
- Regulations
- Notifications
- Customs and usages having force of law
- Article 13(4): Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are excluded from Article 13. This clause was added through the 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971.
Legacy of the Golaknath Case:
- Judicial Restraint on Parliament: This was the first case to restrict Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- Judiciary’s Role Strengthened: It reinforced the Supreme Court’s duty to protect civil liberties and limit legislative overreach.
- Prospective Overruling: Introduced the concept to ensure legal stability without undoing past amendments.
- Constitutional Values Upheld: Affirmed that the Constitution has core values that must be protected, especially Fundamental Rights.
Influence on Future Cases:
- Indira Gandhi Election Case (1975): Built upon the idea that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution.
- Minerva Mills Case (1980): Reaffirmed limits on Parliament’s amending power and emphasised judicial review.
- Foundational Impact: Although later rulings allowed some flexibility, the Golaknath case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Lasting Message: It ensured that Fundamental Rights remain untouchable, securing the heart of Indian democracy against future misuse.
| [UPSC 2018] Consider the following statements:
1.The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. 2.The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court, and no judgment can be made on it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? Options: (a) 1 only *(b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 |
