The Golaknath case, officially known as I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs.

, is a
significant landmark case in Indian constitutional law. It was decided by the Supreme Court of
India in 1967. The main issue in the case was whether the Parliament had the power to amend
the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Background of Golaknath Case

o In the Golaknath case 1967, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark decision where
the most crucial question was whether Part III of the Indian Constitution's fundamental
rights could be amended by the parliament or not.
o The respondents debated that our constitution framers never intended for it to be rigid
and non-flexible, the petitioners argued that the parliament lacks the authority to amend
fundamental rights of the Indian constitution.
o According to the court, the parliament of India cannot change fundamental rights. In the
1973 case, Kesavananda Bharati vs. Union of India, this decision was overturned.
o In this case, the court ruled that although the parliament can amend the
constitution, including the fundamental rights, it cannot change the basic
framework or structure of the constitution.

Summary of the Golaknath Case of 1967

o From 1967, Golaknath vs State Of Punjab is among the most important cases in the
evolution of Indian constitutional law. This case was focussed on whether the Indian
Parliament had the right to change the Indian Constitution in any way that seemed
appropriate or not.
o The development of the case gained momentum through a challenge to the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, which was passed by the Indian Parliament to amend
the Constitution.
o According to the Supreme Court of India, the Constitution must be interpreted as a living
document that can be only changed in accordance with the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution and cannot be altered by the Indian Parliament in any way.
o This fundamental framework, which includes democracy, rule of law, national unity,
integrity, and citizen rights, was determined to be the fundamental tenets of the
Constitution.
o Regarding the above-mentioned Indian Parliament's power to amend the Constitution,
the Supreme Court's ruling, in this case, continues to be cited as having a significant
influence on Indian constitutional law.
o It stopped the Indian Parliament from making arbitrary changes to the Constitution and
was also seen as a significant victory for the Indian Constitution. This ruling has been
further expanded upon and supported in later Supreme Court caseUnlimited Test Re-

Arguments of the Petitioner

o The petitioners argued that the Parliament did not have the authority to amend the
fundamental rights. These rights were considered to be the cornerstone of the
Constitution. They were meant to be unalterable.
o They contended that the Constitution-makers intended to create a rigid framework for
protecting fundamental rights. Any amendment that infringes upon these rights should
be declared void.
 o The petitioners relied on Article 13(2) of the Constitution. It states that any law that takes
away or abridges the fundamental rights shall be deemed void.
o They argued that amendments made by the Parliament should also be considered as laws
under Article 13(2) and subjected to this provision.

Arguments of the Respondent

o The respondents represented the State of Punjab. They argued that the Constitution-
makers did not intend to create an inflexible Constitution. They believed that the
Parliament should have the power to amend the Constitution. This includes the
fundamental rights to adapt to changing times and needs.
o They contended that Article 368 of the Constitution grants the Parliament the authority to
amend any provision of the Constitution. This power should extend to the fundamental
rights as well.
o The respondents relied on previous court judgments, such as the Sri Shankari Prasad
Singh Deo v. Union of India case and the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case, which
upheld the Parliament's amending power over fundamental rights.

Judgment of Golaknath Case

o Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court that had upheld Parliament's right to amend the
Constitution's entire text, including Part III, or fundamental rights, were overturned by the
Golaknath Case’s decision of the court.
o Following the decision, the Parliament of India lacked the power to restrict fundamental
rights.
o The Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment passed in accordance with
Article 368 of the Constitution met the requirements of Article 13 (3) of the Constitution.
o Article 13 (2), didn’t allow the parliament from passing laws restricting the fundamental
rights outlined in Part III of the Constitution, and a constitutional amendment, which falls
under the definition of an ordinary law under Article 13 and cannot, therefore, violate the
fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.

Things Related to Golaknath Case

Some terms, overrulings, schedules, and articles related to the Golaknath Case:

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling

o The Golaknath Case had a significant ruling by the Indian Supreme Court in 1967 and
profound effects on Indian constitutional law that sparked the creation of numerous legal
theories and notions. The doctrine of prospective overruling is one of them.
o A legal principle famously known as ‘prospective overruling’ refers to when a court
announces a new rule of law or legal interpretation but only applies it to cases that will be
decided in the coming future.
o This allows the parties in earlier cases to continue enjoying the advantages of the law as it
was before the new decision has taken place.
 o The decision of the Supreme Court of India in the Golaknath Case, which held that the
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was not absolute, was limited by the
doctrine of prospective overruling.
o The Court said that its decision would not apply to amendments made before
24th April 1973, the decision date, and would only be applicable to amendments
made after the above-mentioned date.
o Since then, the Indian judiciary has used this doctrine in a number of other cases to strike
a balance between the interests of parties in earlier cases and the demand for consistency
and transparency in the law.

Ninth Schedule & Article 31(b)

o The Golaknath Case, 1967, had a great effect on Indian constitutional law and sparked the
creation of several legal theories and notions. One of these is connected to Article 31
clause b of the Indian Constitution's 9th Schedule.
o The Indian Constitution's 9th Schedule was established to protect the laws included in the
schedule from judicial review. In accordance with Article 31(b), the government may
requisition or take away private property for public use without paying fair market value
for it.
o In contrast, the Supreme Court said in the Golaknath Case that laws that violated
fundamental rights could still be challenged in a court of India and that the 9th Schedule
did not provide a blanket defence for all laws included in it.
o The Court further determined that Article 31(b) was not valid as it contravened the right
to property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
o The laws that govern land acquisition and other property-related matters in India were
greatly affected by this decision.
o The Indian Parliament adopted the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1971 in
reaction to the ruling, attempting to reinstate the state's right to seize property with no
payment.
o The case of Kesavananda Bharati, which reaffirmed the idea that the Parliament's ability
to amend the Constitution was constrained by the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution,
also resulted in the Supreme Court invalidating this amendment.
o The Golaknath Case had a great impact on the development of Indian constitutional law
and the distribution of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of
the government of India.

Article 13 & Article 368

o According to article 13 of the Indian Constitution, any law that conflicts with or violates
one or more fundamental rights is not valid to the extent of such conflict or violation.
Whereas, Article 368 addresses the Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution.
o The Supreme Court said in the above Golaknath Case that the Parliament's ability to
amend the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the ability to revoke/ abolish
the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution that resulted in
fundamental rights to be now considered to be unalterable.
o Therefore, the Golaknath Case had a significant impact on Indian constitutional law,
especially in regard to how the Parliament's powers were interpreted and how
fundamental rights were safeguarded.
Brief Introduction
On 24th April 1973, India’s Constitution was saved and its sanctity as India’s
guiding light was cemented. It was on this day that the monumental judgment
in the case of Kesavananda Bharati V. The State of Kerala was passed by the
largest bench (13 judges) that India had seen, defeating the initial record of 11
judges as in the Golaknath judgment. This case helped mitigate the tussle
between the arms that help run the country, namely- the legislature, the
executive and the judiciary. Post India’s independence, this can be considered
to be one of the most important cases that heralded the position of the Indian
democracy and is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case or the Basic
Structure Doctrine Case.

Background- Presenting Context

Justice will be done when this case is understood with reference to other
cases. The judgement was not made in a vacuum and is read better when not
adopting an isolated view.

To begin with, Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and State of
Bihar (1951SC 458) where a challenge was posed to the 1st Constitutional
Amendment Act, 1951 citing that it violated the Fundamental Rights enshrined
in Part III of the Indian Constitution. In this case, it was held by the Supreme
Court that Part III could be amended under Article 368, therefore, the
fundamental rights could be amended by virtue of being a part of Part III.

Then came Sajjan Singh vs the State of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845) where it
reiterated the judgement of Sankari Prasad upholding that the legislature
could amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights
under the ambit of Article 368. However, herein a dissenting opinion was
presented by Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar who formulated the
‘Basic structure doctrine’.

In the year 1967 came change when the Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967
AIR 1643) was declared. This judgement was passed by the Supreme Court
where it held that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution of India could not be amended by the government.
When the Bank Nationalization Case in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union of
India (1970 AIR 564) happened, the Supreme Court boldly held the Bank
Nationalization Act, 1969 as invalid but upheld the Parliament’s right to
nationalize banks.

Next was the Privy Purses Case in Madhav Rao Scindia vs Union of India (1971
AIR 530) where the Supreme Court in a way went against the Government’s
Presidential order, striking it as a result of which the Govt. later tried to abolish
the Privy Purses.

This was how it all started. The Govt. was aggrieved by these judgements
which sought to restrict its authority. In the 1970s, the govt. started batting for
its side by introducing the Constitutional amendments numbered 24
(Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution), 25 (The right to
property was removed as a fundamental right), 26 (Abolition of the Privy
Purse), and 29 (Two Kerala Land Reforms of 1969 and 1971) which sought to
overturn judgements that echoed a similar character to that of the Golaknath
judgement, along with it. By virtue of these amendments, the Govt. had now
bestowed upon itself unrestricted power to amend or even repeal the
fundamental rights.

To introduce now His Holiness Sripad Galvaru Kesavananda Bharati, the monk
who has been called the saviour of the basic structure of the Constitution. He
was the Chief pontiff of the Hindu monastery that goes by the name of Edneer
Matha (or Mutt), situated in the district of Kasargod in the state of Kerala.
Bharati was concerned with the ownership of some land parcels in the Matha
so when the Kerala Government introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act
to help improve the state of the rules that governed land like land ownership,
tenancy laws, the Zamindari system etc, he was disturbed. The amendment
changed the management of said land in the year 1969 and he was affected.
By the provisions of the Amendment, the govt. was entitled to acquire some of
the lands that belonged to the Matha, and as a consequence, the Matha lost
some of its properties and struggled to function as it used to without its
earlier resources. So, he took to the apex court in 1970 on the advice of
renowned lawyer Nanabhoy Palkhiwala (also his Counsel for said case) under
Artice 32 by means of a civil writ petition to challenge this amendment, citing
enforcement of- Nana boy Palki wala
1. Article 14 (Equality before law)
2. Article 19(1)(f) (Freedom to acquire property, no longer a fundamental
right but a legal right)
  Article 25 (Right to practice and propagate one’s religion)
1. Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order,
morality and health)
2. Article 31 (Compulsory Acquisition of Property)
What ensued was 68 days of court hearings from 31st October 1972 to
23rd March 1973, the presence of legal stalwarts by the likes of Fali Nariman,
H.M. Seervai, Niren De, Soli Sorabjee to name a few, and a judgement that was
spread over about 700 pages.

Issues Raised- Questions Forwarded

The issues raised in this court were wider than the scope of the original
intention of the petition. The apex court dealt with the following questions:

1. Whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th constitutional amendments were valid?
2. Whether the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is
unrestricted in its scope, and whether in exercise of this power, it could
amend the Fundamental Rights as enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution under the ambit of Article 368?

Arguments Presented By Both Parties

Petitioner:

 The petitioner advanced that the Parliament could not interfere with the
basic structure of the constitution and that the fundamental rights were
contained within this purview. The Parliament’s authority to make such
amendments was not unlimited or that arbitrary.
 He forwarded that the Constitution was drafted to prevent the exercise
of future tyranny on the citizens, and that the 25th Amendment has
inserted this very tyranny by way of the impugned Article 31C, which if
carried forward will give the Parliament and State Legislatures to
determine the extent of the citizens’ freedom.
Mu dho kar
 They made use of Justice Mudholkar’s ideas in the case of Sajjan Singh v
State of Rajasthan (1964) where it was stated that the constitution could
not be changed by altering its basic structure by way of an amendment
by the Parliament.
 He sought protection over the rights of his property under Art. 19(1)(f)
of the Constitution and claimed that the amendments violated this right.
Respondent:
  The respondents claimed that the Parliament had the power to alter or
abrogate fundamental rights such as that of religion, speech and
expression, and the formation of associations or unions. They advocated
for the supremacy of the Parliament.
 They went further to state that the rule of democracy could even be
replaced by a one-party system if the Parliament wished so by the
exercise of its powers, i.e., the powers were unlimited.
 They cited Re Berubari Union Case 1960 to cement their arguments and
claimed that the Parliament’s authority must not be limited as it needs
such power to fulfill its social and economic obligations.

Judgement- The Final Verdict

The case was decided on 24th April 1973 by a 13-judge bench with a 7:6
majority. The majority included Chief Justice SM Sikri, Justice, JM Shelat,
Justice KS Hegde, Justice AN Grover, Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, Justice Hans
Raj Khanna, Justice BK Mukherjea. The dissenters included Justice YV
Chandrachud, Justice AN Ray, Justice DG Palekar, Justice KK Mathew, Justice
MH Beg, Justice SN Dwivedi. Out of these, four judges did not sign the final
verdict- Justice KK Mathew, Justice MH Beg, Justice SN Dwivedi, and Justice
AN Ray.

The majority verdict held the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ which stated that
although the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is unfettered and
unrestricted, it is subject to the limitation of the basic structure which cannot
be altered. It was held that the term ‘amend’ does not include within its ambit
the basic structure and that such amendments would be subject to a ‘basic
structure test. This basic structure was not clearly defined and was left open to
interpretation for future judgements of the courts.

The 24th Amendment was held to be constitutionally valid however parts of

the 25th Amendment were held to be invalid, namely the first part as intra vires
and the second part as ultra vires. Some of the basic features held were-
separation of powers, judicial review, the supremacy of the constitution, the
balance between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy,
independence of judiciary etc.

Conclusion
The Indian judiciary is designed as such that it is a judiciary of precedents. By
upholding the fundamental rights as unamendable and unreachable by the
talons of the Parliament, this judgement sought to save any future judgements
that would be made in the years to come and set forth a precedent worthy of
admiration, albeit made by a narrow majority.

If there is a judgement that has appreciated democracy in India and saved it

from resorting to any sort of an oligarchy or dictatorship, it is this one.
Kesavananda Bharati has bestowed upon us our basic rights- the basic guiding
principles that colour the nature of the State. The Indian State is a state for its
citizens, and not for those who simply form governments. It is a state for its
citizens. If one were to imagine that the fundamental rights be amendable, it is
easy to picture a dystopian state of affairs where these very basic features that
stand as guardians of human morality would have ceased to exist, or would
have existed differently than they do now. This case in its judgement has also
presented to us how the judiciary and the legislature are separate powers and
how they exercise their checks and balances to make sure that no one arm has
it in an unlimited manner so as to threaten the very fabric of this country.