What was the significance of the Golaknath case (1967) in the context ...
The significance of the Golaknath case (1967) in the context of the Basic Structure Doctrine:
The Golaknath case of 1967 was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that had significant implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the relationship between Fundamental Rights and the power of Parliament to amend them. It laid the foundation for the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine, although it did not explicitly establish it.
Background:
The case originated from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which sought to impose restrictions on the right to hold agricultural land. The petitioner, Keshavananda Bharati, argued that the Act violated his fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.
Key arguments:
During the course of the proceedings, the question of whether Parliament had the power to amend Fundamental Rights arose. The government argued that Parliament had unlimited power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that Fundamental Rights were inviolable and could not be amended.
The Supreme Court's ruling:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that Parliament did have the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 of the Constitution. However, it also held that the power of amendment was not unlimited and that any amendment which destroyed or abrogated the basic structure of the Constitution would be invalid.
Significance:
The significance of the Golaknath case lies in the fact that it marked a significant departure from the Court's earlier stance on the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights. Prior to this case, the Court had held in the Shankari Prasad case (1951) and the Sajjan Singh case (1965) that Fundamental Rights could be amended by Parliament.
The Golaknath case reversed this earlier position and held that Fundamental Rights could not be amended. Although the Court did not explicitly establish the Basic Structure Doctrine in this case, it laid the groundwork for its development in subsequent cases. The Court recognized that there were certain foundational principles and features of the Constitution which formed its basic structure and could not be amended.
While the Golaknath case did not strike down the Kerala Land Reforms Act, its ruling on the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Court explicitly established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
What was the significance of the Golaknath case (1967) in the context ...
The Golaknath case (1967) was significant in the context of the Basic Structure Doctrine, as it reversed the earlier stance that Fundamental Rights can be amended. The Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.