Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, delivered in 1967, that had a profound impact on the interpretation of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly with regard to the Fundamental Rights. 

The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of certain amendments to the Constitution, and it set a precedent by asserting that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament. This case is significant not only for its legal reasoning but also for the way it shaped the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary in India.

In this case, the Supreme Court had to determine whether Parliament had the power to amend Part III of the Constitution, which contains the Fundamental Rights, and whether constitutional amendments could be considered “law” under Article 13. The decision in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab marked a critical shift in constitutional jurisprudence in India, which would later be revisited and refined by subsequent rulings.

Facts of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

The facts of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab revolve around the Golak Nath family’s challenge to the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Golak Nath family, who owned over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab, were subjected to the restrictions imposed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The Act placed limitations on the amount of land the family could retain. The Act stipulated that each brother in the family could retain only thirty acres of land, while the remaining portion was distributed to tenants or declared as surplus.

The family, aggrieved by this restriction, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the Punjab Act. The family argued that the Act violated their rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g), which guarantee the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property and the right to practice any profession. They also claimed that the Act violated the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14.

Additionally, the family challenged the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which had placed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in the Ninth Schedule. The Ninth Schedule was a list of laws that were exempt from judicial review, and the family argued that this amendment violated their Fundamental Rights.

Legal Issues in the Case

The legal issues in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab revolved around two fundamental questions:

1. Whether a constitutional amendment is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a): Article 13(3)(a) defines “law” to include laws made by Parliament and state legislatures, and the key question was whether a constitutional amendment falls within the ambit of this definition. If a constitutional amendment is considered “law,” it would then be subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 13, which prohibits laws that abridge Fundamental Rights.
2. Whether Parliament can amend or abridge the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution: The second question was whether Parliament had the power to amend or curtail Fundamental Rights, specifically those guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that Parliament could not use the amendment power under Article 368 to alter or infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India.

These issues were of significant constitutional importance, as they went to the heart of the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary and the sanctity of the Fundamental Rights.

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab Judgement

The Supreme Court, in a 6:5 majority decision, delivered a judgement that has since become a landmark in Indian constitutional law. The majority held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13 and, therefore, subject to the limitations of Part III of the Constitution.

Key points of the majority judgement:

1. Interpretation of Article 368: The majority of the Court rejected the argument that Article 368 granted Parliament the power to amend the Constitution without any constraints. The majority held that Article 368 only provided the procedure for amending the Constitution but did not grant Parliament the power to alter the basic framework of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. Constitutional Amendments as Law: The majority concluded that any constitutional amendment made under Article 368 would be treated as “law” within the meaning of Article 13. This meant that constitutional amendments, like any other law, could not violate or abridge the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. If any amendment attempted to do so, it would be deemed invalid.
3. Inviolability of Fundamental Rights: The Court reaffirmed that Fundamental Rights, as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, were inviolable and could not be amended or curtailed by Parliament. The majority held that the provisions of Part III could not be altered through constitutional amendments because they form the core of the Constitution, guaranteeing individual freedoms and liberties.
4. Striking Down the Seventeenth Amendment: The Seventeenth Amendment, which had placed the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in the Ninth Schedule, was also challenged in the case. The majority held that this amendment, which sought to shield certain laws from judicial review, could not stand because it violated the fundamental rights of the Golak Nath family. The Court ruled that Parliament could not use the amendment power to make exceptions to Fundamental Rights.

The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

One of the most significant aspects of this judgement was the introduction of the doctrine of prospective overruling by Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao. The doctrine of prospective overruling is a principle where a court, while declaring a law to be invalid, chooses to apply the invalidity only to future cases and transactions, rather than to past actions.

Chief Justice Subba Rao explained that, given the social and economic impact of the constitutional amendments in question, it would be impractical and chaotic to apply the judgement retroactively. As a result, while declaring that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in the future, the Court held that the Seventeenth Amendment and other similar amendments would remain valid for past transactions. This approach allowed for judicial restraint and avoided causing undue disruption to the existing legal and social order.

The Minority View

The minority judges in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab disagreed with the majority on the invocation of the doctrine of prospective overruling. They adhered to a more traditional view, known as the Blackstonian theory, which holds that judicial declarations of law are binding and have immediate retroactive effect.

The dissenting judges argued that the Court should not depart from the established principle that judicial decisions take effect immediately. They contended that the doctrine of prospective overruling was an unwarranted departure from this principle and would undermine the authority of judicial decisions. According to the dissenting opinion, courts should not create exceptions for the future, as this could lead to uncertainty and confusion in the legal system.

While the majority view prevailed, the minority’s dissent highlighted important concerns about the stability and consistency of legal principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Golak Nath v. State of Punjab was a seminal case in Indian constitutional law, affirming the inviolability of Fundamental Rights and limiting the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Court’s decision to treat constitutional amendments as “law” subject to judicial review was a significant step in ensuring that the judiciary could protect individual rights from legislative encroachment.

The case also introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling, which allowed the Court to balance constitutional principles with social and legal stability. Although the decision was overturned by subsequent amendments and judgements, particularly in Kesavananda Bharati, the legacy of Golak Nath remains crucial in understanding the relationship between the legislature, the judiciary, and the protection of Fundamental Rights in India.

Researcher: Upasana Borah (Student, N.E.F LAW COLLEGE GUWAHATI).

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal