I. C. GOLAK NATH & ORS. versus STA TE OF PUNJAB & ANRS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 27-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 42 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I. C. GOLAK NA TH & ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB & ANRS. 
(With Connected Petitions) 
February 27, 1967 
[K. SVBBA RAo, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMJ, 
J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MITTER AND 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JI.] 
Co11stitution of India, Arts. 13(2), 368, 245, 248, Schedule ?,-Li11 I, 
Entry 91-Power to amend Constitution lfhere residu-Wluther resides 
in Art. 368 or in residuary power of Parlio1nent under Art. 248 read with 
Entry 97 List /-Fu11damenta/ Rights in Part Ill whether can be ammd-
ed and abridged by tile procedure in Art. 368-'Law' under Art. 13(2) 
whether includes constitutional amendt~nJs-Scheme of Constitution-
Funda1nerrtal rights nd1ether intended to be permanent 
and 
unamend-
abl~Amendmen1 whether exercise of 
sovereign 
power-Amendment 
whether a political mptter outside the purvlew oi courts. 
Constitution Seventeenth A1nend111ent Act, 1964-Whether invalid for 
contravention of Art. 13(2). 
Prospective overruling, doctrine of-Vasi 
agrarian 
coru1ilutional amendmenls-Necersity of preserving pJSt 
lu1ur~tare decisis. 
changer under 
while protecting 
Punjab Security of Land Te11ures Act, 
1953 (Act 10 of 1953)-
Mysore Land Reforms Act (Acr 10 of 1962) as amtnded by Act 14 of 
1965-Acts contravening fundamental rights-Whether valid. 
The validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure. Act, 1953 
(Act 
10 of I 953) and of the Mysore Land Reforms Act (Act 10 of 1962) 
as amended by Act 14 of 1965 was challenged by the petitioners under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution. Since these Acts were included in the 9th 
Schedule lo the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Ameod-
ment Act, 1964, the validity of the said Amendment Act was also chal-
len~cd. Jn this connection it was urged that Sankari Prasad's 
case in 
which the validity of the Constitution (First) Amendment Act, 1951 had 
been upheld and Sajjan Singh's case in which the validity of the Consti-
tution (Seventeenth) Amendment 
Act, 1964, had been upheld by 
this 
Court, had been wrongly decided. 
It was contended that Parliament had 
no power to ame.id fundamental rights 
in Part Ill of the Constitution. 
HELD : Per Subha Rao, C.1., Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam. 
JJ. (Hidayatullah, 1. Concurrin11) : Fundamental Rights cannot be abrid~­
ed or taken away by the amending procedure in Art. 368 of tr.e Consb-
tution. 
An amendment to the Constitution is 'law' within the meaning 
of Art. 13(2) and is therefore subject to Part Jll of the Constitution. 
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Unfon of Indi.l & Anr. [19521 S.C.R. 
89 and Sajjarr Sin11h v. State of Rajasthan, [1965) 1 S.C.R. 933, reversed. 
Per Subba, Rao, C.J., Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam, 11. 
(i) Fundamental rights are the primordial rights necessary for 
the 
development of human pe™>nality. 
They are the rights which e.!llblc a 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
/I. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GOLAKNATH V. PUNJAB 
763 
man to chalk out his own life in the manner he likes best. Our Consti-
tution, in addition to the well-known 
fundamental rights, also included 
the rights of minorities and other backward communities in such rights. 
[789 El 
The fundamental rights are given a transcendental position under our 
Coostitution and are kept beyond the reach 
of Parliament. At the 
same time Parts III and IV of the Constitution constituted an integrated 
scheme forming a self contained code. The scheme is made so elastic 
that alt the Directive Principles of State Policy can rea,onably be enforc-
ed without taking awar. or abridging the fundamental rights. 
While re-
cognising the immutab11ity of the fundamental 
rights, subject to social 
control, the Constitution itself provides for the suspension or the modifi-
cation of fundamental rights under specific circumstances, as in Arts. 33, 
34 and 35. The non--0b~tante clause with which the IO't 
article opens 
makes it clear that all the other provisions of the Constitution are subject 
to this provision. Article 32 makes 
the right to 
move the Supreme 
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights con-
ferred by the said Pans a fundamental right. 
Even during grave emer-
gencies Art. 358 only suspends Art. 19 and all other rights are untouch-
ed except those sperifically suspended by the President under Art. 3S9. 
[789 H; 790 D] 
The Constitution has given a place of permanence to the fundamen-
tal freedoms. 
In giving to themselvea tho Constitution

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.