I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law, in which the Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict on the constitutionality of certain amendments made to the Constitution of India by the Parliament.
Facts:
The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of three amendments made to the Constitution of India - the 1st Amendment Act of 1951, the 4th Amendment Act of 1955, and the 17th Amendment Act of 1964 - which, among other things, curtailed the fundamental rights of citizens and conferred unlimited power on the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution.
Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the amendments were unconstitutional because they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, which could not be altered even by a constitutional amendment. They contended that the fundamental rights of citizens, such as the right to equality and the right to freedom of speech and expression, were essential components of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that they could not be taken away by any amendment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, in a 6-5 decision, held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights of citizens, as they were part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The court declared that the amendments made by the Parliament were unconstitutional, and that the fundamental rights of citizens could not be taken away by a constitutional amendment.
The most of judgment in Golaknath's case has been excessively criticised in india. It is exhibited that it was wrongly held that Article.368 prescribed merely the procedure for amendment and does not grant any power on parliament. Parliament would have no power to restrict, curtail, or limit Fundamental rights.
The six judges held that the parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Indian constitution so as to restrict or curtail the Rights guaranteed therein.
Personal opinion:
The judgment in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab was a significant development in Indian constitutional law, as it established the principle that the Parliament could not amend any part of the Constitution at its discretion. It upheld the basic structure doctrine, which has been the foundation of constitutional jurisprudence in India ever since. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of fundamental rights as a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, and underscored the need to protect them from arbitrary abrogation.