Introduction for Golakhnath Case –
The Court’s ruling in Golaknath case, also known as the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, was a landmark constitutional case in Indian history. The case was heard by a bench of 11 judges of the Supreme Court of India and dealt with the question of whether the Parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
In 1973 Keshavananda Bharati case , challenged the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which had sought to place certain land reform laws outside the scope of judicial review. The Golaknath case was significant as it raised important questions about the relationship between the Parliament and the Constitution, and the extent to which the Parliament could amend the Constitution.
The decision in the case had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law, including the doctrine of basic structure, which held that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. The Golaknath case is considered to be a precursor to the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which further developed the doctrine of basic structure and established it as a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional law.
What is the summary of Golaknath case?
The Golaknath case of 1967 was a landmark constitutional case in India that dealt with the question of whether the Parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In 1973 the petitioner, Keshavananda Bharati, challenged the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which had sought to place certain land reform laws outside the scope of judicial review.
In a split decision, a bench of 11 judges of the Supreme Court of India held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The court held that the fundamental rights were the “basic structure” of the Constitution and could not be amended by the Parliament. The decision in the Golaknath case had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law, including the doctrine of basic structure, which held that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament.
The Golaknath case is considered to be a precursor to the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which further developed the doctrine of basic structure and established it as a fundamental principle of Indian constitutional law. The decision in the Golaknath case also contributed to the development of the concept of judicial review in India, as the court asserted its power to review constitutional amendments made by the Parliament.
What is background history of Golaknath case?
The background history of the Golaknath case dates back to the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950. The Constitution guaranteed certain fundamental rights to the citizens of India under Part III, which included the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, and the right to life and personal liberty, among others.
In the early 1960s, the Indian government began to undertake land reform measures aimed at redistributing land to the landless and reducing inequalities in land ownership. In 1963, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, which sought to abolish the rights of landlords over their agricultural land and give ownership rights to the tenants who were cultivating the land. The Act was challenged in the courts, and in 1967, the Parliament passed the 17th Amendment Act, which sought to place certain land reform laws outside the scope of judicial review.
The 17th Amendment Act was challenged by Keshavananda Bharati, a seer of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, who argued that the Act was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The case was heard by a bench of 11 judges of the Supreme Court of India, which eventually delivered the landmark judgment in the Golaknath case.
The decision in the Golaknath case had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law, as it established the doctrine of basic structure, which held that certain basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. The case also contributed to the development of the concept of judicial review in India, as the court asserted its power to review constitutional amendments made by the Parliament.
What was the Court’s ruling in the Golaknath case?
In the Golaknath case of 1967, a bench of 11 judges of the Supreme Court of India was divided in their opinion. Six judges, in the majority, held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. They held that the fundamental rights were the “basic structure” of the Constitution and could not be amended by the Parliament.
The remaining five judges, in the minority, held that the Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. They held that the Parliament was the supreme law-making body in the country and had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights.
The decision in the Golaknath case had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law. It established the doctrine of basic structure, which held that certain basic features of the Constitution, such as the fundamental rights, federalism, and the democratic system of government, cannot be amended by the Parliament. The case also contributed to the development of the concept of judicial review in India, as the court asserted its power to review constitutional amendments made by the Parliament.
However, the decision in the Golaknath case was subsequently overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, which upheld the doctrine of basic structure but also held that the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, subject to the limitations imposed by the doctrine of basic structure.
What is basic structure doctrine case laws?
The basic structure doctrine is a principle of constitutional law in India that holds that certain fundamental features or principles of the Constitution are beyond the power of the Parliament to amend. The doctrine was first articulated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and has been subsequently applied and developed in a number of other cases. Some of the key cases that have contributed to the development of the basic structure doctrine in India include:
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The court held that the fundamental rights were the “basic structure” of the Constitution and could not be amended by the Parliament.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the doctrine of basic structure and held that the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, subject to the limitations imposed by the basic structure. The court also identified some of the key features of the basic structure, including the supremacy of the Constitution, the democratic form of government, the rule of law, the federal character of the Constitution, and the protection of fundamental rights.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court of India further developed the basic structure doctrine and held that the Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a manner that destroyed or damaged its basic structure.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the principle of federalism was a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the Parliament could not use its powers to dismiss state governments or impose President’s Rule in a manner that violated the principles of federalism.
These and other cases have contributed to the development of the basic structure doctrine in India and have helped to establish the idea that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are beyond the power of the Parliament to amend.
What is the importance of basic structure of Constitution?
The doctrine of basic structure is one of the most important principles of Indian constitutional law, as it identifies certain fundamental features or principles of the Constitution that are beyond the power of the Parliament to amend. Some of the key reasons why the basic structure doctrine is important include:
- Protecting fundamental rights: The basic structure doctrine ensures that certain fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution cannot be diluted or abrogated by the Parliament through amendments. This helps to safeguard the rights and freedoms of Indian citizens and prevents the government from becoming authoritarian or oppressive.
- Preserving the Constitution’s integrity: The basic structure doctrine helps to preserve the integrity and coherence of the Constitution by ensuring that its fundamental features cannot be altered or destroyed through arbitrary or whimsical amendments. This helps to maintain the Constitution’s status as the supreme law of the land and promotes stability and continuity in the legal system.
- Promoting constitutionalism and democracy: The basic structure doctrine promotes the principles of constitutionalism and democracy by limiting the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. This helps to prevent the Parliament from becoming a tyrannical or arbitrary institution and ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that can adapt to changing social, political, and economic circumstances.
- Safeguarding federalism: The basic structure doctrine helps to safeguard the principles of federalism by ensuring that the powers of the Union and the states are distributed in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution’s federal character. This helps to prevent the Union from becoming too dominant and promotes a more balanced distribution of power between the Union and the states.
Overall, the doctrine of basic structure is a critical component of Indian constitutional law that helps to protect fundamental rights, preserve the integrity of the Constitution, promote democracy and federalism, and ensure the stability and continuity of the legal system.
What is 24 amendment of Indian Constitution Golaknath case?
The 24th Amendment to the Indian Constitution was passed in 1971 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Golaknath case, which had held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The 24th Amendment sought to amend Article 13 of the Constitution, which deals with the definition of “law” and its impact on fundamental rights.
Specifically, the 24th Amendment added a new clause (4) to Article 13, which stated that “nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.” This meant that any amendments made to the Constitution under Article 368 would not be subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13 and could not be challenged on the grounds that they violated fundamental rights.
The 24th Amendment was challenged in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which ultimately upheld the doctrine of basic structure and held that the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, subject to the limitations imposed by the basic structure. However, the 24th Amendment remains an important part of Indian constitutional history, as it reflects the tension between the Parliament and the judiciary over the power to amend the Constitution and the scope of judicial review.
Did Kesavananda Bharati case overruled Golaknath case?
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) overruled the earlier decision in the Golaknath case (1967) by explicitly rejecting the theory of unamendability of the Constitution. In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court had held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, as these rights were considered to be beyond the scope of amendment. However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of basic structure, which held that while the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not do so in a manner that destroyed or abrogated its basic structure or essential features.
Thus, the Kesavananda Bharati case effectively overruled the decision in the Golaknath case and established the principle of basic structure as a fundamental part of Indian constitutional law. It is worth noting that the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in response to the Golaknath case, but it was challenged and partly struck down by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which upheld the doctrine of basic structure as a constitutional limitation on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
What was the aftermath of the Golaknath case?
The aftermath of the Golaknath case was marked by controversy and debate, and it had a significant impact on Indian constitutional law. Some of the key aftermaths are:
- Introduction of the doctrine of unamendability: The Golaknath case introduced the concept of unamendability of the Constitution, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. This was a significant departure from the traditional understanding of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and sparked a debate about the scope of that power.
- Criticism of judicial activism: The decision in the Golaknath case was criticized for being an example of judicial activism, as the Supreme Court effectively limited the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. This raised concerns about the role of the judiciary in Indian democracy and whether the Court was encroaching on the domain of the elected representatives.
- Controversy and backlash: The decision in the Golaknath case was controversial and was met with criticism from many quarters, including the government and the Parliament. The decision was seen as a limitation on the power of the Parliament and raised concerns about judicial overreach.
- Partially overruled: The decision in the Golaknath case was partly overruled by the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, which introduced the doctrine of basic structure and held that while the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not do so in a manner that destroyed or abrogated its basic structure or essential features.
In conclusion, the aftermath of the Golaknath case was marked by controversy and debate, and it had a significant impact on Indian constitutional law. While the case introduced the concept of unamendability of the Constitution, its impact was limited as it was partly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Nonetheless, the case raised important questions about the balance of power between the Parliament and the judiciary, and the scope of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
What is key features of Golakhnath Case –
The key features of the Golaknath case (1967) are as follows:
- The case dealt with the issue of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution: The Golaknath case was primarily concerned with the question of whether the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights: In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution were not amenable to amendment by the Parliament. This meant that any amendment that sought to abridge or abrogate these fundamental rights would be unconstitutional and invalid.
- The case introduced the concept of unamendability of the Constitution: The Golaknath case introduced the concept of the unamendability of the Constitution, which held that certain provisions of the Constitution, particularly those related to fundamental rights, were beyond the scope of amendment. This was a significant departure from the traditional understanding of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- The decision was controversial: The decision in the Golaknath case was controversial and was met with criticism from many quarters, including the government and the Parliament. The decision was seen as a limitation on the power of the Parliament and raised concerns about judicial overreach and activism.
- The decision was partly overruled in the Kesavananda Bharati case: The decision in the Golaknath case was partly overruled in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the doctrine of basic structure and held that while the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not do so in a manner that destroyed or abrogated its basic structure or essential features.
Critical Analysis of the Golakhnath Case-
The Golaknath case (1967) was a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that dealt with the question of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The decision in the case was controversial and sparked a debate on the scope of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Here is a critical analysis of the case:
- Unamendability of the Constitution: The decision in the Golaknath case introduced the concept of the unamendability of the Constitution, which held that certain provisions of the Constitution, particularly those related to fundamental rights, were beyond the scope of amendment. This was a significant departure from the traditional understanding of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. However, this concept was not accepted by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which introduced the doctrine of basic structure.
- Judicial activism: The decision in the Golaknath case was criticized for being an example of judicial activism, as the Supreme Court effectively limited the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. This raised concerns about the role of the judiciary in Indian democracy and whether the Court was encroaching on the domain of the elected representatives.
- Controversial decision: The decision in the Golaknath case was controversial and was met with criticism from many quarters, including the government and the Parliament. The decision was seen as a limitation on the power of the Parliament and raised concerns about judicial overreach.
- Partially overruled: The decision in the Golaknath case was partly overruled in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which introduced the doctrine of basic structure and held that while the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not do so in a manner that destroyed or abrogated its basic structure or essential features. Thus, the impact of the Golaknath case on Indian constitutional law was limited.
In conclusion, while the Golaknath case was an important case in Indian constitutional law, its impact was limited as it was partly overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The case raised important questions about the scope of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in Indian democracy, but its legacy is primarily one of controversy and debate.
Conclusion for Golakhnath Case –
The Golaknath case was a significant case in Indian constitutional law that introduced the concept of unamendability of the Constitution, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. The decision was controversial and criticized for being an example of judicial activism. However, the decision was later partly overruled by the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, which introduced the doctrine of basic structure.
As a result, the impact of the Golaknath case on Indian constitutional law was limited. Nonetheless, the case raised important questions about the balance of power between the Parliament and the judiciary, and the scope of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.