I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners in the first petition were heirs of Henry Golak Nath. By an order of 22 January 1962, the Financial Commissioner held 418 standard acres and 9-1/4 units in their hands surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. They petitioned under Article 32, claiming the Act violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) and seeking a declaration that the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments were unconstitutional so far as they affected their fundamental rights. The other petitions challenged the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, which fixed land ceilings and gave tenants ownership of surplus land, under Articles 14, 19 and 31. The States replied that the Seventeenth Amendment, by amending Article 31A and placing both Acts in the Ninth Schedule, put them beyond attack. A Special Bench of eleven Judges heard the matter.

Questions before the Court

1. Can Parliament, in exercise of the power of amendment, take away or abridge the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution?
2. Is a law amending the Constitution 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2)?
3. Does the power to amend lie in Article 368, or in Articles 245, 246 and 248 read with Entry 97 of List I?
4. Is the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 valid, and if not, should the decision operate only prospectively?

What the Court held

• Fundamental rights in Part III cannot be taken away or abridged by an amendment of the Constitution. An amendment of the Constitution is 'law' within Article 13(2), so an amendment that takes away or abridges those rights is void.
• Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan which followed it, were wrong in conceding to Parliament the power to amend Part III so as to abridge fundamental rights.
• Subba Rao, CJ's judgment for five Judges applied prospective overruling: the First, Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments, valid under earlier decisions, continue to be valid, and from the date of the decision Parliament has no power to amend Part III so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights. Hidayatullah, J. did not rely on this doctrine.
• The petitions were dismissed without costs. The Punjab and Mysore Acts could not be challenged as violating fundamental rights: for Subba Rao, CJ's judgment because the Seventeenth Amendment held the field, and for Hidayatullah, J. because Article 31A and the President's assent protected them.

Why it matters

A bench of eleven Judges held, by six to five, that the amending power cannot be used to take away or abridge fundamental rights and that a constitutional amendment is 'law' under Article 13(2), rejecting the contrary view in Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. Subba Rao, CJ's judgment for five Judges adopted the doctrine of prospective overruling, laying down that it can be invoked only in matters arising under the Constitution, only by the Supreme Court, which may mould the retroactive effect of its decision.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Article 368, Constitution
• Article 13(2), Constitution
• Article 245, Constitution
• Article 246, Constitution
• Article 248 and Entry 97, List I, Seventh Schedule, Constitution
• Article 31A, Constitution
• Article 31B and Ninth Schedule, Constitution
• Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (With Connected Petitions)

Case

Writ Petition No. 153 of 1966 (with Writ Petitions Nos. 202 and 205 of 1966)

Decided

27 February 1967

Bench

Rao, K. Subba (CJ), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Mitter, G.K., Vaidyialingam, C.A.

Opinions

Majority 6:5 on the amending power. Subba Rao, CJ delivered the judgment of himself, Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.; Hidayatullah, J. concurred in a separate judgment. Wanchoo, J. delivered the judgment of himself, Bhargava and Mitter, JJ., and Bachawat and Ramaswami, JJ. wrote separately agreeing with him. All eleven Judges dismissed the petitions.

Questions on this case

11 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

1. Question 1 · Constitutional Law Practice Set 3 — Rights, Cases & Structure

   In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held that:

   1. A. Parliament has unlimited amending power
   2. B. Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights
   3. C. The basic structure doctrine applies
   4. D. President's Rule is subject to judicial review
   Show the answer

   B. Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights

   In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an eleven-Judge Bench held that Parliament could not amend Part III so as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. The basic structure doctrine came later in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

2. Question 2 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

   In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), what did the majority hold about the power of Parliament under Article 368?

   1. A. It is unlimited, and no amendment made under it can be called in question in any court on any ground
   2. B. It does not extend to Part III at all, so no fundamental right can ever be abridged by an amendment
   3. C. It can amend Part III only after ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States
   4. D. It reaches every provision, but does not include a power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution
   Show the answer

   D. It reaches every provision, but does not include a power to alter the basic structure of the Constitution

   The majority held that the amending power under Article 368 is wide but does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution, and overruled I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had denied Parliament any power to abridge fundamental rights. An unlimited, non-justiciable amending power was what clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 later tried to create, and those clauses were struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).

3. Question 3 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

   In which case did the Supreme Court hold that Parliament had no power to amend Part III so as to abridge fundamental rights (a view later overruled in Kesavananda Bharati), but give that ruling only prospective effect by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling?

   1. A. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
   2. B. Waman Rao v. Union of India
   3. C. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
   4. D. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
   Show the answer

   D. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

   In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the majority declared that Parliament would have no power, from the date of the decision, to amend Part III so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights, and applied prospective overruling so that the earlier amendments continued to be valid. The holding on the amending power was overruled in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).