INTRODUCTION
This case derived its importance from the case of Shankari prasad v. Union of India[1] where the issue discussed was whether the fundamental right to property that was controlled by the parliament in the process of abolishing the Zamindari system was constitutional or not. It was held that it cannot be held unconstitutional and that as ‘land’ came under the state list it is at the discretion of the state. Another important judgment before the would-be Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[2] where it was held that parliament could assume the power to amend the fundamental rights of the citizen although it is not explicitly mentioned in article 368. This gave rise to the two biggest cases in the constitutional history of India which is the Golaknath v. State of Punjab[3] and the Keshavnanda Bharati v. State of Kerala[4].
FACTS AND ISSUES
This case is about William Golak Nath who own 500 acres of land in Punjab. It is under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953. State place this in the 9 schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act,1964 that came into force. The state order that only 30 acres of land will be own by him. Rest will be treated a surplus. Distressed by this action of the state he file a writ petition u/a 32 of Indian constitution. And implore the violation of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) right to hold and acquire property, 19(1)(g) right to practice any profession and article 14that dealt with Equality before Law & Equal protection of laws.
The main issue was the validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act,1964 under which the two questions considered where:
- Whether this amendment is a ‘law’ under Article 13?
- Whether the state has the right to amend Fundamental Rights?
ARGUMENTS
The arguments by petitioners justify why an amendment will also fall under the definition of ‘law’; under Article 13(3) of the Indian constitution. As it covers all types of law which could be statutory or constitutional. Any act that tries to change an integral part of the constitution can be state unconstitutional. In this case, the fundamental rights of the citizens are an integral part of the constitution. Article 368 does not give the parliament the right to amend the fundamental rights of the citizens. It just describes the process to amend the constitution.
The arguments of the opposition stood firm about how the parliament is exercising its sovereign power and not the legislative power. They mention that all the amendments have equal status and there is nothing like integral and non-integral amendments. The parliament must amend laws as per the changing needs of the society. This is just the way of it exercising its duty.
REASONING AND INTERPRETATIONS
Article 13 of the Indian constitution states that any law derogatory or inconsistent with the provisions of this part shall be declare void. The main question is whether a constitutional amendment is a part of such ‘law’ or not. The Court decide that any amendment does come under the ambit of law and Article 13 is applicable in this case. The parliament has no right to bring in any law that bridges the fundamental rights of the people.
Majority’s Opinion
The majority consisting of CJI Subba Rao, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidiyalingam wrote together and Justice Hidayatullah in agreement with CJI opinion wrote an individual judgment. It mention that constituent power is not any distinct from any legislative power to amend the constitution.
It was also held that the reasoning that Article 368 in the constitution only gives the procedure to amend the law. Articles 245 and 248 give the parliament the residuary power to amend. Any law that is amend from the power derive from Article 248 is ‘law’. Hence Article 13(2) will be applicable. The word ‘amendment’ was imply in Article 13 and need not be explicitly mention as they are changes to existing laws to make them better fit for the society.
Minority Opinion
The minority including Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava and G.K. Mitter wrote an opinion and Justices R.S. Bachawat& V. Ramaswami write a separate judgment in agreement with the minority which highlight how if the Parliament not have the power to amend then the constitution will become static in a dynamic society that we live in. This would affect the position of the parliament as they believed that the fundamental rights of a citizen would change with the evolution of societal standards and the power to amend is a prime need. They wanted to give the parliament complete autonomy with regards to amendments and believed that the constituent power to amend and the legislative power to amend are different as the former holds more importance than the latter.
The judgment was in favor of the William Golak Nath with the 6:5 ratio as the decisions were in favor of the majority. It was held that the parliament can amend any part of the constitution. Except for Part III of the constitution which includes the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. The judgment in this process overruled the judgment passed in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh and the then CJI elaborated on an American principle of ‘Prospective overruling’ which states that effect of this judgment will have only futuristic and will not affect any past judgment. It is decide that this will have a prospective effect for two basic reasons –
(a) the retrospective ruling would lead to a lot of confusion and unnecessary petitions contradicting almost every amendment passed previously,
(b) the laws that have been laid down based on Shankari prasad or Sajjan Singh will all declared void with immediate effect that will further lead to chaos and this was not desired.
CONCLUSION
This case the ongoing cold war between the judiciary and the legislative to prove their supremacy. It was this case that finally restricted the parliament from amending anything under Part III as it is the basic and the most integral part of the constitution and it must be safeguarded from any bias and prejudice. The views of the then PM was in favor of the decision made as there is nothing called permanence of laws. It must change with the needs of the society and a certain flexibility must be provide but at the same time the rights of the citizens are of utmost importance that must be protected from any sort of intentional or unintentional partiality. The constitution must not be rigid as it will hinder the growth or nation and society but also not so flexible that eventually the essence of it is lose.
This judgment made the constitution extremely rigid. The opinion of Justice Mudholkar in Sajjan Singh should have been consider and all the essential parts of the Constitution are protect to have avoid this confusion. The main aspect the majority did not pay heed to is that ‘the essence’ of the constitution is not only the Fundamental Rights but also the indispensable function of SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC India as guaranteed by the Preamble to the Constitution which also needed equal protection. This further gave rise o the legendary Keshavananda Bharti case which dealt with the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution and overruled this judgment.
References:
[1] A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 455.
[2] A.I.R. 845, 1965 S.C.R. (1) 933.
[3] A.I.R. 1643, 1967 S.C.R. (2) 762.
[4] (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
0 Comments