CASE SUMMARY: I.C. GOLAKHNATH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

 CASE SUMMARY: I.C. GOLAKHNATH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

BY SWATEE SHUKLA

In this case, the seventeenth amendment of the constitution of India was challenged on the ground that

it limited or restricted certain fundamental rights. The question before the apex court was thus whether

parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution, and in particular, part III thereof,

dealing with fundamental rights.

This point had already been decided in two earlier cases. In S.P. Singh, the supreme court had

unanimously held that parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution including part III

dealing with fundamental rights In the second case, Sajjan Singh v. the state of Rajasthan, the same view

was taken, but this time by a majority of 3:2.

Since the court was not unanimous in the second case, the present case was referred to a specially

constituted bench of 11 judges of the supreme court.

Overruling the earlier decisions, 6 out of 11 judges held in this case that parliament had no power to

amend the constitution to restrict or limit fundamental rights. The majority judgement thereof ruled

that the seventeenth amendment was void- as it abridged certain fundamental rights.

The supreme court immediately realized that this would mean that all the previous amendments of the

constitution which affected fundamental rights would now become void and that this would lead to

chaos. Therefore, the court invoked the American doctrine of prospective overruling and clarified that

the previous amendments would continue to be valid, but henceforth, parliament would have no power

to abridge or modify any fundamental right.

The majority judgement also held that article 368 merely prescribed the procedure for the amendment

of the constitution; it did not confer any power on parliament. In coming to these conclusions, the court

focused on the title of article 368, which at that time was ‘procedure for amendment of the

constitution.

The majority judgement I, in this case, as been profusely criticized both in India and abroad, it is pointed

out that it would not be correct to say that article 368 merely prescribed the procedure for amendment

of the constitution- but does not confer any power to parliament to do so. One cannot go only by the

wordings of the title of a section or article. Now, article 368 has been changed. Instead of reading

‘procedure for amendment of the constitution, it now reads ‘power of parliament to amend the

constitution and procedure therefor’.

The suggestion that only a new constituent assembly can restrict or abridge fundamental rights is

criticized as being both illogical and impractical. If parliament has no power to carry out such

amendments, how can it authorize another body to do exactly the same thing?

To reverse the ruling of the supreme court in Golaknath’s case, parliament passed the twenty-fourth

amendment, which empowered parliament to amend any provision of the constitution, including the

chapter on fundamental rights. This amendment, along with other amendments, was challenged before

the supreme court in the kesavanand Bharti case, where the supreme court overruled its decision.