Case Analysis On I.C. Golaknath Vs. State Of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643, Case That Changed Paradigm Of Fundamental Rights In India
Niranjan Rai, Amity University Mumbai
ABSTRACT
This case is one of the most Landmark Cases in Constitution Law after the Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan1 and Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India And State Of 2, which is IC. Golkanath Vs. The State of Punjab3. The case brought a new opinion, new thinking to the concept of Fundamental Rights. It overruled the Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad Case. This case deals with Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution of India. There is a controversy regarding Article 13 and Article 368, that in Article 13, which states that a law that takes away or abridges a Fundamental Right is declared unconstitutional or ultra vires, and in Article 368, we have a Procedure to amend the Constitution. So, these two Articles are contradicting to each other. Since the 1st Constitutional Amendment, the two main questions were whether the Fundamental Rights could be taken away or amended by amending the Constitution and whether amending provision or making Constitutional Amendment would be considered a good law within Article 13(2).
In this case, the Supreme Court has adopted the concept of Prospective Overruling. That is, there would be No Retrospective effect to the Judgment that is declared in this case. This case was also overruled in 1973 with the infamous case of Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala4.
Keywords:- Article, Constitution Amendment, Prospective Overruling, Law, Article 13 and Article 368.
