I.C. Golak Nath Case (1967)
Background of the Case
The case arose from challenges to several constitutional amendments that affected the Right to Property, particularly:
- 1st Amendment Act (1951)
- 4th Amendment Act (1955)
- 17th Amendment Act (1964)
The petitioners, led by I.C. Golak Nath, argued that:
- Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights
- Such amendments violate Article 13(2)
This directly questioned the correctness of earlier judgments in Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964).
Core Constitutional Questions
- Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
- Is a Constitutional Amendment a “law” under Article 13(2)?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
(a) Overruling Earlier Precedents
By a narrow majority, the Supreme Court:
- Overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
- Held that Parliament cannot abridge or take away Fundamental Rights
Thus,Fundamental Rights were declared transcendental and immutable.
(b) Constitutional Amendment Is “Law” Under Article 13(2)
The Court radically reversed its earlier position and held that:
- A constitutional amendment is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2)
- Therefore, any amendment that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights is void
This interpretation subordinated Parliament’s amending power to Part III.
Article 368 – Procedural, Not Substantive
The Court further held that:
- Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment
- It does not confer substantive power to amend the Constitution
Hence, Parliament’s amending authority flows from its ordinary legislative power, which is subject to Article 13(2).
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
To avoid constitutional chaos, the Court applied the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:
- Earlier amendments (1st, 4th, and 17th) were allowed to continue
- The judgment would apply only to future amendments
This was:
- The first major use of prospective overruling in constitutional law in India
- Borrowed from American jurisprudence
Impact of the Judgement
(a) Parliamentary Response – 24th Amendment Act, 1971
To neutralize the effect of Golak Nath:
- Parliament enacted the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
This amendment:
- Explicitly stated that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights
- Clarified that a constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2)
- Reasserted Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368
(b) Constitutional Tussle Intensifies
This judgment triggered:
- A direct confrontation between judiciary and Parliament
- The chain of events leading to:
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
- Evolution of the Basic Structure doctrine
Constitutional Significance
- Shifted the balance in favour of judicial supremacy
- Introduced the idea of inherent limitations on amending power
- Temporarily froze Parliament’s ability to reform Fundamental Rights
- Marked the second phase of amendment jurisprudence
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Case | Position |
|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad (1951) | Parliament can amend FRs |
| Sajjan Singh (1964) | Reaffirmed above |
| Golak Nath (1967) | Parliament cannot amend FRs |
| 24th Amendment (1971) | Parliament restores power |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Basic Structure doctrine |
Conclusion
The I.C. Golak Nath Case (1967) held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, treated constitutional amendments as “law” under Article 13(2), applied prospective overruling, and led directly to the 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971.