I. C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anrs.(with Connected Petitions)
In short. The case of I. C. Golaknath & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anrs. revolves around the challenge to the validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, as amended by the 1965 Act. The core issue was whether Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution through the procedure outlined in Article 368. The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights cannot be abridged or taken away by constitutional amendments, thus declaring the relevant amendments invalid. The court reasoned that amendments are considered "law" under Article 13(2) and are therefore subject to the protections of fundamental rights.
Facts
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, which were included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964. The petitioners argued that these Acts contravened their fundamental rights. The procedural history includes previous judgments, notably Sankari Prasad's case and Sajjan Singh's case, which upheld earlier amendments, leading to the contention that these decisions were wrongly decided.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners contended that
- Parliament lacks the power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368.
- The inclusion of the Acts in the Ninth Schedule does not shield them from judicial review.
- Previous judgments (Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh) were incorrectly decided.
The court addressed these arguments by emphasizing that fundamental rights are essential for human development and cannot be altered by amendments. The court's rejection of the petitioners' reliance on previous cases was based on a reinterpretation of the scope of Article 368.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents argued that
- The power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, resides with Parliament under Article 368.
- The inclusion of the Acts in the Ninth Schedule was valid and protected from judicial scrutiny.
The court countered these arguments by asserting that amendments are subject to the limitations imposed by fundamental rights, thus invalidating the respondents' claims regarding the absolute power of Parliament.
Precedents considered
Key precedents cited include
- Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India: Upheld the validity of the First Amendment but was later reversed in this case.
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Upheld the Seventeenth Amendment but was also overturned in this judgment.
The court distinguished these cases by arguing that the interpretation of fundamental rights must evolve to protect individual liberties against legislative encroachment.
Legal principles
The court considered several legal principles
- Fundamental Rights: Defined as primordial rights essential for human personality development.
- Article 13(2): Amendments are considered "law" and must comply with fundamental rights.
- Article 368: The procedure for amending the Constitution does not extend to altering fundamental rights.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court's rationale centered on the inviolability of fundamental rights, asserting that they are not merely legislative privileges but essential to democracy and individual dignity. The court criticized the notion that Parliament could unilaterally amend these rights, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight.
Outcome
The Supreme Court declared the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, as unconstitutional due to their contravention of fundamental rights. The court ordered that these Acts be struck down and reaffirmed the principle that fundamental rights cannot be amended by parliamentary procedure.
Conclusion
This judgment has significant implications for the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary in India. It reinforces the sanctity of fundamental rights and establishes a precedent that amendments to the Constitution must respect these rights, thereby shaping future constitutional law and legislative actions.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.