Background: The Golak Nath case emerged as a significant legal battle concerning the power of Parliament to amend fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Golak Nath, a landowner from Punjab, challenged the constitutionality of the 17th Amendment, which altered the property rights provisions of the Constitution, specifically the right to property as a fundamental right.
Key Issue: The central issue was whether Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution in a way that could abrogate or alter the fundamental rights of citizens.
Arguments:
Golak Nath’s Argument: The petitioner argued that fundamental rights are an essential part of the Constitution and that they cannot be amended or curtailed by any legislation passed by Parliament. He maintained that these rights are inherent to the individual and must be protected from any parliamentary interference.
State of Punjab’s Argument: The state defended the amendments, asserting that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, as per Article 368. The state argued that the Constitution allows for changes to ensure social justice and economic equality.
Judgment: The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Golak Nath, declaring that fundamental rights cannot be amended or taken away by any law passed by Parliament. The court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not extend to altering the fundamental rights, thereby reaffirming their inviolable status.
Significance: The Golak Nath judgment was pivotal in shaping the relationship between fundamental rights and parliamentary power. It established the principle that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged by amendments to the Constitution. This case laid the groundwork for the later development of the basic structure doctrine, which emphasizes the supremacy of fundamental rights in the constitutional framework. The ruling influenced subsequent legal discussions and cases regarding the limits of parliamentary power in amending the Constitution, ultimately leading to further clarifications in later judgments.
