🧑‍⚖️ Case Name:

🧑‍🏫 Background:

• The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of farmland in Punjab.
  • Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the government placed a ceiling on land holdings, declaring excess land as surplus.
• The family challenged this, arguing it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) (Right to property) and Article 14 (Right to equality).

The real issue was whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

---

⚖️ Legal Issues:

1. Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
2. Is there any limit on the amending power under Article 368?

---

📜 Arguments by Golaknath (Petitioners):

• Fundamental Rights are transcendental and inalienable.
• Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but not the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• Amending Fundamental Rights would destroy the basic fabric of the Constitution.

---

📜 Arguments by the State (Respondents):

• Parliament has plenary power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368.
• Amending Fundamental Rights is essential for social justice, such as land reforms.
• Earlier cases (like Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh) had already held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

---

🏛️ Verdict (Majority Opinion – 6 Judges):

• Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
• Article 368 only provides the procedure for amendment, not the power.
• Fundamental Rights are beyond the reach of Parliament.
• Any amendment that curtails or takes away Fundamental Rights is void.
• Prospective Overruling: This judgment will not affect past amendments (e.g., 1st, 4th, 17th Amendments) but will apply to future ones.

---

📝 Dissenting Opinion (5 Judges):

• Article 368 includes both the power and procedure.
• Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• There should be no limitation on the amending power to meet evolving social needs.

---

🚨 Impact of the Judgment:

1. Set limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
2. Led to the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971):
   • Explicitly stated that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
3. This was later reviewed in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Basic Structure Doctrine was established.

---

🧠 Key Concepts Introduced:

• Prospective Overruling – law applies in the future, not retroactively.
• The idea that Fundamental Rights form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

---

---

🕰️ Historical Context

After independence, the Indian government aimed at social and economic reforms, especially land redistribution to reduce inequality. However, many of these reforms clashed with Fundamental Rights, particularly:

• Article 14 – Equality before law
• Article 19(1)(f) – Right to acquire and hold property
• Article 31 – Right to property (now repealed)

Several constitutional amendments were passed to override judicial decisions that struck down land reform laws. This led to a tussle between Parliament and the Judiciary over the scope of Article 368.

Earlier cases:

• Shankari Prasad (1951): Supreme Court said Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
• Sajjan Singh (1965): Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, but Justice Subba Rao dissented, warning of potential misuse.

---

👨‍👩‍👦 Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Golaknath family of Punjab – challenged land ceiling laws that took away their land.
• Respondents: State of Punjab and the Union of India.

---

🧩 Core Constitutional Questions

1. Is there a difference between constitutional law and ordinary law in terms of amendability?
2. Does Article 368 provide only a procedure or also the substantive power to amend the Constitution?
3. Can Fundamental Rights be amended or abrogated by Parliament?

---

🧑‍⚖️ Judgment Analysis: Majority (6:5)

🗣️ Delivered by: Chief Justice K. Subba Rao

---

Key Reasoning:

1. Article 368 is only procedural

• It does not confer power to amend; it just lays down the method.
• Power to amend must be traced to Article 245 (legislative powers), not 368.

2. Amendment is ‘law’ under Article 13(2)

• Article 13(2): “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights”.
• So, if an amendment qualifies as ‘law’, it is subject to judicial review.

3. Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct

• They’re placed at the core of the Constitution.
• They have a transcendental status and are immune to political shifts.
• Parliament is a creature of the Constitution and cannot destroy its basic values.

4. Prospective Overruling

• A new doctrine in Indian law.
• The Court declared that this ruling would not affect past constitutional amendments, only future ones.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Dissenting Judges (5 Judges)

Key figures: Justices Hidayatullah, Wanchoo, Bhargava, Mitter, and Ramaswami

---

Dissent Reasoning:

1. Amendment ≠ ordinary law

• A constitutional amendment is not subject to Article 13.
• It’s not a “law” under Article 13(2).

2. Supreme Court should not restrict Parliament’s will

• Elected Parliament must be supreme in amending the Constitution.
• Judiciary cannot impose extra-constitutional limits.

3. Balance between Rights and Reforms

• Social justice may require modification of rights like property.
• Blocking amendments may hinder welfare legislation.

---

📚 Doctrines Involved:

Doctrine	Meaning	Application in Golaknath
Prospective Overruling	Judgment applies only to future cases	First use in India
Doctrine of Supremacy of Fundamental Rights	Rights cannot be overridden by any authority	Asserted by majority
Doctrine of Limited Government	Parliament’s power is not absolute	Reinforced

---

📌 Criticisms of Golaknath Judgment:

1. Judicial Overreach: Critics argued the judiciary overstepped and intruded into the domain of Parliament.
2. Frozen Constitution: By making Fundamental Rights unamendable, it risked making the Constitution inflexible.
3. Ambiguity: The judgment created confusion between amendment vs. legislation.
4. Overruled Earlier Precedents: It reversed settled legal positions (Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh).

---

⚡ Aftermath and 24th Amendment (1971)

Parliament retaliated by passing the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act:

• Amended Article 368 to say explicitly that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution.
• Made it clear that amendments are not “law” under Article 13.

---

⚔️ Final Showdown: Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• Golaknath was partially overruled.
• Court held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, but not the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
• This struck a balance between Golaknath and Parliament’s power.

---

🏛️ Legacy of Golaknath:

✅ Elevated judicial consciousness around constitutional limits
✅ First time “Prospective Overruling” was used
✅ Laid foundation for Basic Structure Doctrine
❌ But viewed by some as a rigid interpretation of constitutional change