Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
State of Punjab
This case is an important milestone in the Indian Judicial history that demonstrated the use of
doctrine of prospective overruling. This landmark case also withheld the powers of the
Parliament to curtail the Fundamental Rights as mentioned in the Constitution. It
demonstrates the legal complexity in the implementation of an Act like the Land Ceilings
Act. The primary issues with the implementation of an Act that dictates the amount of land
holding for every Indian citizen can be discussed using this case as a reference [2]
The following are a few important Articles that were under conflict. The judgement of the
judiciary bench was based on the importance given to the Fundamental Rights protected by
the Article 13 of the Indian Constitution as against the Article 368 that granted the power and
laid down the procedure to amend the constitution.
this doctrine was that it was the duty of the court to identify newer and better rules for future
judgements whenever the court reaches a conclusion that the older version of the rule are
obsolete. With the help of this doctrine, Justice Subba Rao attempted to maintain and
preserve constitutional validity of the Constitution Amendment Act.
Conclusion:
The Golaknath case was a landmark in the Indian judicial history not only because of the
doctrine but also because it was a precedent in which the Court overruled the right of the
Parliament to curtail the Fundamental Rights of the Indian citizens. This means that the
introduction of an Act that dictated the amount of land holdings was deemed unconstitutional.
This was against progressive judiciary as large land holding were nothing more than de facto
Zamindari system [3]. The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act was a tool for the Indian
Government to bring social equality and prevent gross privatization of agriculture.
Several Articles of the Indian Constitution were conflicted by the Act and hence a clearer
explanation of the text of the constitution was required to achieve a progressive judgement.
The Kesavananda Bharathi Case repealed the decision of the Golaknath case. The judgement
of the Kesavananda Case went well beyond the validation of the Golakhnath verdict [4]. The
Court ruled that there is a clear demarcation between the ordinary law and the constitutional
law. The ordinary law was made to exercise the legislative power and the constitutional law
was made to exercise the constitutional power. The law mentioned in Article 13(2) was
explained to be the legislative ordinary law and hence the Fundamental Rights in the
Constitution could be amended. [1]
References:
[1] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l426-L.-C.-Golaknath-V.-State-Of-Punjab.html
[2] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/prul.htm
[3] http://mrunal.org/2013/10/land-reforms-land-ceiling-meaning-pro-anti-arguments.html
[4] http://www.thehindu.com/books/the-inside-story/article2669232.ece
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.C._Golaknath_and_Ors._vs_State_of_Punjab_and_Anrs.