Judgement of Golakhnath v. State of Punjab with Full case details

 Golakhnath v. State of Punjab (1967)  

 

Golakhnath v. State of Punjab (1967)

This is one of the maximum distinguished cases in Indian Legal History which become overturned in any other essential case, Keshavananda Bharati vs UOI (1973). 


Facts 


Henry and William Golaknath’s own circle of relatives become the proprietor of almost 500 acres of land and for this reason to the Land Tenures Act, The Government of Punjab said that they could most effectively keep 30 acres each. Both brothers should keep most effective 30 acres of land of their possession, a few a part of the final might take delivery of to the tenants and the final of it'd be declared as surplus. 

The own circle of relatives challenged this withinside the courts. They stuffed a writ petition below Article 32, mentioning that the Land Tenure Act, has seized their article 19(f) and (g) which states that they have the proper to keep the belongings and exercise any profession. This act becomes positioned withinside the ninth time table of the Constitution, extremely vires and additionally known as the 17th Amendment. 





Arguments  from Both the Parties 


Petitioner’s Arguments 


The petitioner said that parliament has no proper to amend the constituent Assembly and is permanent. They additionally located a controversy mentioning that ‘modification’ needs to be added whilst there's an alternate maintaining in mind /thinking about the primary shape however now no longer totally bringing a brand new idea. Fundamental rights are the soul of the frame named  Constitution of  India and that can not be taken away. They additionally argued the Article 368 offers the system for amending the charter however doesn’t deliver parliament to alternate/amend the charter. 

The petitioner additionally argued that Act13(2), states that any constitutional modification that takes away the Fundamental Rights is invalid. 

Respondent’s Argument 

The respondents placing ahead their argument stated that there's not anything of that kind just like the primary shape withinside the constitutions and the charter can not be inflexible however must be amended to match withinside the converting society. All provisions withinside the charter need to take delivery of the same importance. 




Judgment of Golakhnath v. State of Punjab (1967) case


In 1967, the 11 decide bench, the most important bench that ever sat. The judgment becomes in Favour of the petitioner’s (6:5), in which lots of them minority separate opinions. But the bulk of them agreed to the argument that the parliament can not take delivery of the proper to amend the charter and dealt with the Fundamental rights to be same to the herbal rights and fearing the converting of the democratic rule into an autocratic rule, they stored the amending the essential rights above the attain of Parliament. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cyclone Yaas Online Live Update | Yaas cyclone track 2021 | Live Weather Map | Live Cyclone Map | Live location of Cyclone Yaas

[PDF] THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION) AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES BILL, 2020

BEHIND THE STORY OF WORLD LAUGHTER DAY? -Find Your Advocate

World Environment Day 2022 Theme | Find Your Advocate

Right to Privacy in India | Constitution of India | article 21- Find Your Advvocate

[Article 25-28] Freedom of Religion - Indian Constitution | FindYourAdvocate

Article 21 of Indian Constitution | PDF of Article 21 Indian Constitution | Find Your Advocate

18 Must Reading Books For Law Student | Reading Books List for Lawyer or Advocate