The Golaknath case refers to a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1967. The full name of the case is “Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab,” and it is officially known as Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643).
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, and the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, both of which sought to curtail the scope of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
The central issue in the Golaknath case was whether the Parliament of India had the power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution or not. The petitioners argued that the Parliament did not have the power to amend Part III, as fundamental rights were beyond the amending power of the legislature.
On 27th February 1967, an 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Golaknath case. The majority held that the Parliament did not have the authority to amend fundamental rights. This decision established the doctrine of “basic structure,” stating that certain essential features of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, could not be amended by the Parliament, as they formed the basic structure of the Constitution.
However, it’s essential to note that later, in 1973, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, modified the decision in the Golaknath case. The court held that while Parliament had wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it could not alter its basic structure.
The Golaknath case is undoubtedly a landmark in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It was a pivotal moment in the evolution of constitutional law in India and had far-reaching implications on the understanding of the Constitution’s amending powers and the protection of fundamental rights.
The case revolved around the interpretation of Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the procedure for amending the Constitution. The specific question before the court was whether the Parliament had the authority to amend or abridge fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution through its amending power.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment on 27th February 1967, held that fundamental rights formed an essential and inviolable part of the Constitution’s basic structure. As such, they were beyond the reach of the Parliament’s amending power. The court, through this decision, introduced the doctrine of “basic structure,” establishing that certain core features of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, could not be tampered with or diluted by constitutional amendments.
Key elements that make the Golaknath case a landmark in Indian constitutional jurisprudence:
- Concept of Basic Structure: The doctrine of basic structure, formulated in this case, became a fundamental principle in Indian constitutional law. It provided the judiciary with the authority to review the validity of constitutional amendments and to strike down those that violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
- Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: By asserting that fundamental rights were part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the Golaknath case significantly strengthened the protection of individual rights and liberties. It made it clear that these rights could not be easily curtailed or taken away through constitutional amendments.
- Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy: The case highlighted the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution’s supremacy and acting as the final interpreter of the Constitution. It asserted the judiciary’s power to review the actions of the legislature and the executive to ensure they conform to the Constitution’s provisions.
- Impact on Subsequent Cases: The doctrine of basic structure laid down in the Golaknath case has had a lasting impact on various subsequent constitutional cases in India. Courts have consistently used this doctrine to review constitutional amendments and maintain the balance of power between the branches of government.
- Evolution of the Constitution: The Golaknath case contributed to the ongoing evolution of the Indian Constitution. It marked a significant shift in the understanding of the Constitution’s amending powers and the scope of fundamental rights, shaping the trajectory of constitutional development in the country.
The doctrine of “basic structure” is a constitutional principle that originated from the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643) in India. It refers to the idea that certain core features or essential elements of the Constitution cannot be amended or abrogated by the Parliament through its amending power under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution.
The concept of basic structure was introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the Golaknath case, where the court ruled that fundamental rights are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and, therefore, beyond the reach of the Parliament’s amending power. In other words, Parliament cannot alter or take away fundamental rights by merely amending the Constitution.
Overall, the Golaknath case represents a critical chapter in Indian constitutional history, setting the stage for future judicial interpretations and decisions. It remains relevant as a guiding precedent for the courts in their role as guardians of the Constitution and protectors of individual rights and the Constitution’s basic structure.