Skip to main content

Golaknath v. State of Punjab by GPT 4.0

 The case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab, decided in 1967, is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that had a profound impact on the Constitution of India, particularly on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.


Background:

The Golaknath family owned over 500 acres of farmland in Punjab. However, the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act restricted the amount of land a family could own to 30 standard acres. Excess land was to be declared 'surplus' and redistributed. The Golaknath family challenged the constitutionality of this Act.


Legal Issue:

The key legal issue revolved around whether Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution so as to abridge any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This issue arose in the context of the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution, which had been enacted to implement land reform laws and were challenged by the petitioners.


Supreme Court Judgment:

- The Supreme Court, in a narrow 6-5 decision, ruled that Parliament does not have the power to amend the Constitution in a way that takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights outlined in Part III.

- The Court overruled its earlier decisions in the Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases, where it had held that Parliament had wide powers to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

- The judgment was based on the premise that the Constitution had given a transcendental position to Fundamental Rights, and they were immutable to the extent of being immune to the amending power of Parliament.


Significance of the Judgment:

1. Constitutional Amendment as a 'Law': The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore, if it violates any Fundamental Right, it may be declared void.

2. Inviolability of Fundamental Rights: This judgment established the doctrine that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged, taken away, or abrogated by Parliament through constitutional amendments.

3. Trigger for the Basic Structure Doctrine: Although the Golaknath case did not explicitly mention the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, it set the stage for its development in the subsequent Kesavananda Bharati case.


Aftermath:

- The ruling in the Golaknath case prompted a significant constitutional response. In 1971, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, which amended Article 13 and Article 368 to expressly exclude constitutional amendments from being "law" within the meaning of Article 13, thereby aiming to remove the restriction that the Golaknath case had placed on Parliament's amending power.

- The 25th Amendment, enacted in the same year, was another response to this judgment, aiming to immunise land reform laws from judicial review.


Conclusion:

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case is a seminal judgment in the annals of Indian constitutional law, representing a critical moment in the evolving relationship between the judiciary and the legislature in India. Its implications continue to influence the constitutional discourse around the power of parliamentary amendments and the sanctity of Fundamental Rights.


For more detailed information, you can refer to the sources like [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golaknath_v._State_of_Punjab) and [Indian Kanoon](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1306515/).



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK by GPT4.0

  Here are 20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK, which have had a considerable impact on various areas of law: 1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993): Addressed the legality of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state. 2. Ridge v Baldwin (1964): A significant case in administrative law, involving the improper dismissal of a Chief Constable. 3. Pepper v Hart (1993): Established that when interpreting statutes, reference can be made to the Parliament's debates for clarity. 4. Woolmington v DPP (1935): A fundamental case in criminal law, establishing the principle that the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt (presumption of innocence). 5. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): Important for establishing the test for a duty of care in negligence law. 6. Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003): Key case in employment law, particularly on the issue of sex discrimination.

Top 10 Interesting cases in the Indian Judiciary by GPT 4.0

  Here are summaries of some of the most interesting and significant cases in the history of the Indian judiciary: 1. Bhawal Case (1921-1946): This unusual case involved a claimant who appeared years after the supposed death of Ramendra, the second son of the zamindar of Bhawal, claiming to be him. The case went through several trials and appeals, and it concluded with the Privy Council in London ruling in favor of the claimant in 1946. However, the claimant died shortly after the verdict. 2. ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla (1976): Known as the Habeas Corpus case, it's one of the most critical cases in Indian constitutional history. During the Emergency of 1975, the right to seek enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 was suspended. The Supreme Court controversially upheld this suspension. 3. Himmat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973): This case was crucial in upholding the citizens' right to hold public meetings and the extent to which the state can regulate

"Miranda v. Arizona" (1966) by GPT4.0

  "Miranda v. Arizona" (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly impacted law enforcement practices and the rights of accused persons in the United States. This case established the principle that criminal suspects must be informed of their rights before interrogation, a protocol now known as the "Miranda warning." Background: - Ernesto Miranda: The case centered around Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested in 1963 and charged with kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery in Phoenix, Arizona. - Interrogation and Confession: Miranda was interrogated by police officers for two hours, during which he confessed to the crimes. However, he was not informed of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent. The Legal Issues: - Fifth Amendment: The case raised questions about the application of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, particularly in the context of police interrogations. - Sixth Amendment: It also involved th