-crop.jpg)
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, also known as the "Golak Nath Case," is a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary. Decided by a eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 1967, the case dealt with the question of whether or not the Indian parliament had the power to amend the Constitution of India in any way it saw fit. The case was significant because it limited the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution, and established that certain fundamental rights could not be amended by a simple majority.
The case originated in 1965, when the State of Punjab passed the Abolition of Zamindari Act, which sought to redistribute land from the landlords to the landless and the poor. The act was challenged in the Supreme Court by one of the landlords, Golak Nath, who argued that the act violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-5 majority decision, held that the parliament did not have the power to amend the Constitution in any way it saw fit, and that there were certain fundamental rights that could not be amended by a simple majority. The court established that the Constitution could be amended, but that such amendments could not be used to take away or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The court also established that certain fundamental rights, such as the right to property, were protected from being abridged or taken away by a simple majority.
The Golak Nath case is considered a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary, as it limited the power of the parliament to amend the Constitution and established that certain fundamental rights could not be amended by a simple majority. The case also had a significant impact on the Indian political system, as it placed limits on the ability of the parliament to amend the Constitution in any way it saw fit.
However, the decision of the court was overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case in 1973, which established the principle of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which means that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or altered by the parliament, and also stated that the parliament could amend the Constitution, but that such amendments could not destroy or alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
In conclusion, Golak Nath v. State of Punjab is a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary that limited the power of the parliament to amend the Indian Constitution, and established that certain fundamental rights could not be amended by a simple majority. The case had a significant impact on the Indian political system by placing limits on the ability of the parliament to amend the Constitution in any way it saw fit. However, the decision of the court was overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India case, which established the principle of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which means that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended or altered by the parliament. This case has become an important landmark in the Indian Constitutional history.