Case Brief: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Introduction

• CITATION: AIR 1967 SC 1643: (1967) 2 SCR 762
• JUDGES: K. Subba Rao, C.J, Justice C.A Vaidialingam, Justice G.K Mitter, Justice J.C Shah, Justice J.M Shelat, Justice K.N Wanchoo, Justice M Hidayatullah, Justice R.S Bachawat, Justice S.M Sikri, Justice V. Bhargava and Justice V. Ramaswami.
• DATE OF DECISION: 27-02-1967
• TOPIC: Principle of Basic Structure of the Constitution

Facts of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Golaknath and his brother William jointly held waste land in Punjab. According to the 1953 Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the collector for Jalandhar claimed that Golaknath and his brother unlawfully retained 30 acres of land. Golaknath contested this Act, asserting that it violated their Constitutional rights to own property and pursue any profession as guaranteed by Articles 19(f) and (g) of the Constitution. They also contested the legality of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, which included the Punjab Act in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution.

Issues of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

• One of the key issues in the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab case was whether the power to amend the Constitution lies within Article 368 or in the residuary power of Parliament under Article 248 read with Entry 97, List-1.
• Another significant point of contention was whether the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution can be amended and abridged through the procedure outlined in Article 368.
• The case also raised the question of the validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, with concerns about its compliance with Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India.

Judgement of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

• Fundamental Rights are essential for human development as they allow individuals to lead their lives as they see fit. These rights are crucial for shaping one's own life.
• Our Constitution not only guarantees well-known fundamental rights but also safeguards the rights of minorities and other marginalized communities.
• The Fundamental Rights hold a supreme position in our Constitution and are safeguarded from interference by the Parliament.
• Parts III and IV of the Constitution together form an interconnected framework that ensures a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs).
• Article 368 outlines the procedures for amending the Constitution, while the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is derived from various constitutional provisions.
• The Parliament is duty-bound to enforce DPSPs, and any amendments must follow the legislative process.
• Any changes to the Constitution, whether under Article 368 or other articles, can only be made by Parliament through the established legislative procedures.
• Article 13(2) provides an inclusive definition of "Law," which encompasses Constitutional Law as well.
• The amendment process under Article 368 closely resembles the legislative process and requires parliamentary involvement.

Held

• Fundamental rights in India are safeguarded and cannot be diluted or removed through the amending process outlined in Article 368 of the Constitution.
• An amendment to the Constitution is considered a form of "Law" as defined in Article 13(2) and is thus bound by the provisions of Part-III of the Indian Constitution.