Skip to main content

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS OF GOLAKNATH V STATE OF PUNJAB

 JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS OF GOLAKNATH V STATE OF PUNJAB

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important instances in Indian legal history is Golaknath v State of Punjab. In this situation, a variety of questions have been raised. The most crucial question was whether or not the parliament has the authority to change the basic rights established in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the parliament does not have the authority to change fundamental rights, while the replies argued that the constitution's authors never intended for our constitution to be inflexible and non-flexible. The Supreme Court ruled that parliament cannot modify basic rights. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati VS UOI 1973, this judgement was overturned. The court ruled that while the parliament can amend the constitution, including fundamental rights, it cannot change the constitution's core framework.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In Jalandhar, Punjab, Henry and William Golaknath owned about 500 acres of agriculture. The government ruled that the brothers could maintain just thirty acres each under the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, with a few acres going to renters and the rest declared excess. The family of golaknath disputed this in the courts. In addition, in 1965, this matter was sent to the Supreme Court. The family filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the Punjab Act of 1953 violated their constitutional rights to acquire and keep property, practise any profession (Article 19 (f) and (g)), and to equality before the law (Article 14). They wanted the seventeenth amendment, which put the Punjab Act in the ninth schedule, declared unconstitutional (beyond the powers). One of the most important cases in Indian history is Golaknath. I.C v State of Punjab. The court established jurisprudence around the idea of basic structure with its decision in this case. In 1967, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not limit any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by India's constitution.

JUDGEMENT 

In this case, the supreme court had the largest bench ever at the time. The majority of the judges ruled in favour of the petitioners, with a 6:5 ratio. The majority judgement was written by the CJI at the time, along with other justices (J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, and C.A. Vaidiyalingam). Because Justice Hidayatullah concurred with Chief Justice of India Subba Rao, he wrote a separate decision. Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava, and G.K. Mitter each wrote a single minority opinion, while justices R.S. Bachawat and V. Ramaswami each wrote a separate minority opinion.

The majority of golakh Nath's opinion expresses scepticism regarding the conduct of parliament at the time. Since 1950, the parliament has used article 368 to approve a number of laws that have violated part III of the constitution's fundamental rights in one way or another. The majority of people were sceptical that if Sajjan Singh remained the law of the country, all of our constituent assembly's core rights would be changed through amendments. Concerned about the issue of fundamental rights and the possibility of a transition from democratic to authoritarian India. As a result, Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad were overridden by the majority.

The majority of people believe that parliament does not have the authority to change fundamental rights. These are fundamental rights that are exempt from parliamentary regulation. As a result, in order to protect democracy from parliament's dictatorial activities, the majority ruled that parliament cannot modify the fundamental rights established in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The majority of people believe that fundamental rights and natural rights are the same things. These rights are critical for a person's growth and development.


ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT 

Fundamental rights are thought to be necessary for the growth of a person's individuality.These are the rights that enable a guy to plan his or her own life in the way that he or she desires. Our constitution guarantees us fundamental rights, which include the rights of minorities and other underprivileged groups. Parliament and state legislatures in India have the right to establish laws within their respective domains, according to the Constitution. However, in nature, this power is not absolute. The judiciary is in charge of upholding the Constitution, as well as adjudicating on the constitutional legitimacy of all laws. The Supreme Court has the authority to declare a statute passed by Parliament or state legislatures to be unlawful, unconstitutional, or extra vires if it breaches any provision of the Constitution. Despite this, the founding fathers intended for the Constitution to be a flexible rather than a rigid foundation for governing. They intended it to be a flexible text that could alter or adapt to changing circumstances.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more