JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS OF GOLAKNATH V STATE OF PUNJAB
One of the most important instances in Indian legal history is Golaknath v State of Punjab. In this situation, a variety of questions have been raised. The most crucial question was whether or not the parliament has the authority to change the basic rights established in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the parliament does not have the authority to change fundamental rights, while the replies argued that the constitution's authors never intended for our constitution to be inflexible and non-flexible. The Supreme Court ruled that parliament cannot modify basic rights. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati VS UOI 1973, this judgement was overturned. The court ruled that while the parliament can amend the constitution, including fundamental rights, it cannot change the constitution's core framework.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In Jalandhar, Punjab, Henry and William Golaknath owned about 500 acres of agriculture. The government ruled that the brothers could maintain just thirty acres each under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, with a few acres going to renters and the rest declared excess. The family of golaknath disputed this in the courts. In addition, in 1965, this matter was sent to the Supreme Court. The family filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the Punjab Act of 1953 violated their constitutional rights to acquire and keep property, practise any profession (Article 19 (f) and (g)), and to equality before the law (Article 14). They wanted the seventeenth amendment, which put the Punjab Act in the ninth schedule, declared unconstitutional (beyond the powers). One of the most important cases in Indian history is Golaknath. I.C v State of Punjab. The court established jurisprudence around the idea of basic structure with its decision in this case. In 1967, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not limit any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by India's constitution.
In this case, the supreme court had the largest bench ever at the time. The majority of the judges ruled in favour of the petitioners, with a 6:5 ratio. The majority judgement was written by the CJI at the time, along with other justices (J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, and C.A. Vaidiyalingam). Because Justice Hidayatullah concurred with Chief Justice of India Subba Rao, he wrote a separate decision. Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava, and G.K. Mitter each wrote a single minority opinion, while justices R.S. Bachawat and V. Ramaswami each wrote a separate minority opinion.
The majority of golakh Nath's opinion expresses scepticism regarding the conduct of parliament at the time. Since 1950, the parliament has used article 368 to approve a number of laws that have violated part III of the constitution's fundamental rights in one way or another. The majority of people were sceptical that if Sajjan Singh remained the law of the country, all of our constituent assembly's core rights would be changed through amendments. Concerned about the issue of fundamental rights and the possibility of a transition from democratic to authoritarian India. As a result, Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad were overridden by the majority.
The majority of people believe that parliament does not have the authority to change fundamental rights. These are fundamental rights that are exempt from parliamentary regulation. As a result, in order to protect democracy from parliament's dictatorial activities, the majority ruled that parliament cannot modify the fundamental rights established in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The majority of people believe that fundamental rights and natural rights are the same things. These rights are critical for a person's growth and development.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
Fundamental rights are thought to be necessary for the growth of a person's individuality.These are the rights that enable a guy to plan his or her own life in the way that he or she desires. Our constitution guarantees us fundamental rights, which include the rights of minorities and other underprivileged groups. Parliament and state legislatures in India have the right to establish laws within their respective domains, according to the Constitution. However, in nature, this power is not absolute. The judiciary is in charge of upholding the Constitution, as well as adjudicating on the constitutional legitimacy of all laws. The Supreme Court has the authority to declare a statute passed by Parliament or state legislatures to be unlawful, unconstitutional, or extra vires if it breaches any provision of the Constitution. Despite this, the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be a flexible rather than a rigid foundation for governing. They intended it to be a flexible text that could alter or adapt to changing circumstances.