Golaknath vs.

State of Punjab
This case is an important milestone in the Indian Judicial history that demonstrated the use of
doctrine of prospective overruling. This landmark case also withheld the powers of the
Parliament to curtail the Fundamental Rights as mentioned in the Constitution. It
demonstrates the legal complexity in the implementation of an Act like the Land Ceilings
Act. The primary issues with the implementation of an Act that dictates the amount of land
holding for every Indian citizen can be discussed using this case as a reference [2]

Background on the case:

The family of Henry Golaknath and William Golaknath held more than 500 acres of land in
the State of Punjab. During that period, in the light of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure
Act of 1953, the State Government declared that the family could own only 30 acres of land.
Any land beyond 30 acres would be declared as surplus. This surplus land would then be
distributed to other farmers and cooperative farming societies without any compensation to
the Golaknath family. This was challenged by the Golaknath family. The case was later
referred to the Supreme Court of India in the year 1965. The primary basis for filing the case
was that the family argued that the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 was denying
them their fundamental right to acquire and hold property, practice any profession,
equality before and equal protection of the law. The family also sought to get the Act
declared ultra vires or invalid. The family filed a petition under the Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. [5]

Acts under Question:

The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953
Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962
Constitution of India:

9th Schedule, 17th Amendment Act, 1964

Article 13(2), Article 368

The following are a few important Articles that were under conflict. The judgement of the
judiciary bench was based on the importance given to the Fundamental Rights protected by
the Article 13 of the Indian Constitution as against the Article 368 that granted the power and
laid down the procedure to amend the constitution.

Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

13(2): The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void
Article 368:
Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its
constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this
Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article

The Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court of India gave a landmark judgement under the leadership of Dr. K. Subba
Rao. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision which had granted the Parliament
complete powers to amend any and all parts of the Constitution. This absolute power that was
handed to the Parliament also allowed it to amend the Fundamental Rights. The court had
been able to pass this judgement only by a very weak majority of 6:5.
The majority was of the belief that the Article 368 of the Constitution was an ordinary law
within the meaning of the Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution. There was no clear
difference between the ordinary legislative power and the constitutional power of the
Parliament to amend the Constitution. As per the majority, the Article 368 had contained only
the procedure to amend the constitution and no power to amend it. Therefore, the
amendments that curtail or abridge or take away the Fundamental Rights cannot be passed.

The Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:

Whenever a judicial pronouncement is made, it is well known that this pronouncement
applies to any case that follows the instant case. Hence this case serves as a precedent to the
previous cases. This is a retroactive operation of the precedent. In opposition, the prospective
overruling operates in the prospective domain. The amendments made to the constitution
would apply only to cases in the future.
This doctrine finds its source in the American law. It was in this case that for the first time in
the Indian judicial history, Chief Justice Subba Rao had invoked the doctrine. The essence of

this doctrine was that it was the duty of the court to identify newer and better rules for future
judgements whenever the court reaches a conclusion that the older version of the rule are
obsolete. With the help of this doctrine, Justice Subba Rao attempted to maintain and
preserve constitutional validity of the Constitution Amendment Act.

Conclusion:
The Golaknath case was a landmark in the Indian judicial history not only because of the
doctrine but also because it was a precedent in which the Court overruled the right of the
Parliament to curtail the Fundamental Rights of the Indian citizens. This means that the
introduction of an Act that dictated the amount of land holdings was deemed unconstitutional.
This was against progressive judiciary as large land holding were nothing more than de facto
Zamindari system [3]. The Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act was a tool for the Indian
Government to bring social equality and prevent gross privatization of agriculture.
Several Articles of the Indian Constitution were conflicted by the Act and hence a clearer
explanation of the text of the constitution was required to achieve a progressive judgement.
The Kesavananda Bharathi Case repealed the decision of the Golaknath case. The judgement
of the Kesavananda Case went well beyond the validation of the Golakhnath verdict [4]. The
Court ruled that there is a clear demarcation between the ordinary law and the constitutional
law. The ordinary law was made to exercise the legislative power and the constitutional law
was made to exercise the constitutional power. The law mentioned in Article 13(2) was
explained to be the legislative ordinary law and hence the Fundamental Rights in the
Constitution could be amended. [1]

References:
[1] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l426-L.-C.-Golaknath-V.-State-Of-Punjab.html
[2] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/prul.htm
[3] http://mrunal.org/2013/10/land-reforms-land-ceiling-meaning-pro-anti-arguments.html
[4] http://www.thehindu.com/books/the-inside-story/article2669232.ece
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.C._Golaknath_and_Ors._vs_State_of_Punjab_and_Anrs.