Can the Parliament of India amend the Fundamental Rights?


Case: Golak Nath and others Vs. State of Punjab


Case citation: 1967 AIR 1643,1967 SCr (2) 762


Introduction:


In the Golak Nath and others Vs. State of Punjab case, the power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights was observed. In this special case, the doctrine of prospective over ruling was drawn out and a restriction had been imposed for amending the fundamental rights.








Facts: 


Golak Nath, who was the writ petitioner of the Golak Nath and others Vs. State of Punjab case had 500 acres of land in Punjab. As per the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953, the petitioner could not hold more than 30 acres of land and the rest part of the land was to be considered as the surplus land.

In this regard, it is to be mentioned that the stated act was placed in 9th Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964. On this contrary, the Constitution of India has empowered the citizen of the country to hold and acquire property as a Fundamental Right [Article 19 (1) (f)]. In this regard, the Constitution also secures Equality before the law and Equal protection of the law to the citizens through article 14.


On the basis of the Constitutional Fundamental Rights, the petitioner filed a writ petition under article 32 challenging the legitimacy of the constitutional amendments as the legislation was against the fundamental rights.


Issue:


The constitutional validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964


Judgment:


The judgment of the Golak Nath and others Vs. State of Punjab case was very important and interesting as the Honorable Supreme Court had the largest bench ever sat on an issue till that time for giving the verdict to the case. The judgment was in favour of the petitioner at a 6:5 majority. In this case, the new concept of prospective overruling was made and due to this reason, it was held that the Parliament had no right to amend the Fundamental Rights.