Golaknath Case. Facts. The immediate facts of the case were that the family of one William Golak Nath had over acres of property in. In the famous case of Golaknath V. State of Punjab, in the year the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the. ; posts about Golaknath case which continued to create history of Indian Judiciary. This is case.

Author: Fedal Kazilar
Country: Samoa
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 4 June 2012
Pages: 161
PDF File Size: 7.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.75 Mb
ISBN: 114-3-48218-461-3
Downloads: 73009
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kisida

It is then urged that there is no golqknath provision in Art. The check is not in the courts but in the people who plect members of Parliament. If the fundamentals would be amenable to the ordinary process of amendment with a special majority, the argument proceeds, the institutions of the President can be abolished, the parliamentary executive can be removed, the fundamental rights can be abrogated, the concept of federalism’ can be obliterated and in short the sovereign democratic republic can be converted into a totalitarian system of government.

Kamath, one of the members of Constituent Assembly, was withdrawn and Art. If therefore the power to amend the Constitution is contained in Art. Further, Indian court by interpretation reject retroactivity.

I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anrs.

III of the Constitution, for the words “that he withholds assent therefrom” found in Art. State of Uttar Pradesh[] Supp. We have not noticed the other arguments of Mr. If the power to amend the Constitution is to be found in Art. It is not what Parliament regards at a given moment as conducive to the public csse but what Part III declarer.

That in our opinion postulates that if assent is not given, the Golaaknath cannot be amended.

I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs. – Wikipedia

But we fail to see why when there is a whole Part devoted to the amendment of the Cons- titution the power to amend should golakmath be found in that Part, if it can be reasonably found there and why Art. Another line of argument is that in any case it was necessary to take action under the proviso to Art. Blackstone in his Commentaries, 69 15th edn.


The amendments relating to Part III have been mainly with respect to agrarian reforms resulting in transfers of title of millions of acres of land in favour of millions of people. While ordinarily this Court will be reluctant to reverse its previous decision, it is its duty in the constitutional field to correct itself as early as possible, for otherwise the future progress of the country and the happiness of the people will be at stake. Gopaknath the future Parliament wishes to amend any particular article which is not mentioned in Part III or articleall that is necessary for them is to have two-thirds majority.

I. C. Golaknath & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anrs. –

It is conceded that there may be an express limitation not merely in the Article providing for amendment, but in some other part of the Constitution. The expression ‘declared’ in Art.

While recognisingthe immutability of the fundamental rights, subject to social control the Constitution itself provides for the suspension or the modification of fundamental rights under specific circumstances, as in Arts. The question of the amendability of the fundamental rights was considered by this Court earlier in two decisions, namely, Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v.

The completion of the procedural steps cannot be said to culminate in the power to amend for if that was so the Constitution makers could have stated that in the Constitution. This conclusion is reinforced by the other articles of the Constitution.

An attempt to abridge or take away Fundamental Rights by a constituted Parliament even through an amendment of the Constitution can I declared void.

He drew protective cover offered by the doctrine over the impugned amendments while manifestly holding that the impugned amendments abridged the scope of fundamental rights. The Constitution-makers thought that it could be done and we also think that the directive prin.


The decision in Sajjan Singh’s case 2 was given in the con- text of the question of the validity of the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, If it is the duty of the Parliament to enforce the directive principles, it golaknsth equally its duty to enforce them without infringing the fundamental rights.

Chaudhuri, for Intervener No. Trust, confidence and deference, initially the foundation of this relationship between the vital pillars of the state, is regrettably conspicuous cxse its absence. It is also urged that Art. Save as expressly provided in Arts. Of the three constitutional amendment caes — the 24th, 25th and 26th — the first enabled to override the Golaknath judgement, while the other two circumvented judicial verdicts on bank nationalisation and privy purses.

Articles and golaknathh Parliament seeks to amend the Constitution for political reasons but the court in denying that power will not be deciding a political question; it will only be holding that Parliament has no power to armed Particular articles of the Constitution for any purpose whatsoever, be it political or otherwise.

Reference is also made to similar provisions in. The third method is by an agreement in some form or other of either of the majority or of all the federating units as in Switzerland, Australia and the United States of America. The decision in Golaknath led to the emergence of two schools of thoughts namely. The bitter confrontation between the judiciary and executive in its wake continued for more than six years till the judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case in