I.C. Golaknath V/s.

State of Punjab 1965

Abhishek Agarwal Nirmal Tom

Basic Details

Date of Judgment: 27/02/1967

Presented in: Supreme Court of India

Appellant: I.C. Golaknath

Respondent:
State of Punjab

Case Opinion by:

K. Subba Rao
2

Who is Golaknath??
Henry

& William Golaknath were the

property holders of 500 Acres of farmland in Jalandhar, Punjab

They were allowed to hold only 30 Acres

of land each, and rest were declared

Surplus and was acquired by state

government.
3

Claims by Golaknath Family

We are denied of our Fundamental Right to acquire and hold property

They filed a petition under Art-32 of Indian Constitution

Acts under Question:

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953

Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962 Constitution of India:

9th Schedule Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964
5

Questions need to be answered

1. Whether Amendment is a law under the meaning of Article 13(2)?

2. Whether Fundamental Rights can

be amended or not?
6

Articles involved (1)

13(2)- State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights

368. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.
7

Articles involved (1I)

245. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. 248. (1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List.
8

Articles involved (I1I)

31(A)- acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall not be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14, article 19 or article 31.
9

Past Cases Referred (1)

Shankari Prasad Singh v/s. Union of India,1951 Sajjan Singh v/s. State of Rajasthan, 1964

SC Said: Article 368 carries the power to amend all parts of the Constitution including the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. An amendment is not 'law' for the purpose of Art. 13(2) and cannot be tested under that Article.
10

Past Cases Referred (1I)

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 Pandit M. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha, 1959 Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963

SC Said: If it is the duty of Parliament to enforce directive principles it is equally its duty to enforce them without infringing the fundamental rights.
11

Past Cases Referred (III)

Cases in the courts of USA

SC Said:

The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, inasmuch as it takes away or abridges fundamental rights was beyond 'the amending power of Parliament and void because of contravention of Art. 13(2). But having regard to the history of this and earlier amendment to the Constitution, their effect on the social and economic affairs of the country and the chaotic situation that may be brought about by the sudden withdrawal at this stage of the amendments from the Constitution it was undesirable to give retroactivity of this decision. The present was therefore a fit case for the application of the doctrine of "prospective. Overruling, evolved by the courts in the United States of America. 12

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

It

does not do away with the doctrine of state decision but confines it to past transactions. 'involves the making of law, that the court really does is to declare the law but refuse to give retroactivity to it
13

It

Past Cases Referred (IV)

Garnishee Case

SC Said:

Article 368 cannot directly be amended by Parliament to confer power on itself over the fundamental rights, It would be against Art. 13(2). Parliament cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
14

Final Judgment

A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13. Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure.

The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament.
Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.
15

THANK

YOU

16