Supreme Court Upholds Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, Validates Agrarian Reforms but Limits Future Amendments to Fundamental Rights

Landmark Golak Nath Verdict Declares Parliament Cannot Amend Fundamental Rights to Take Away or Abridge Them; Doctrine of Prospective Overruling Applied

In a historic and extensively reasoned judgment delivered on February 27, 1967, a Special Larger Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising eleven judges, including Chief Justice K. Subba Rao and Justices K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, R.S. Bachawat, V. Ramaswami, J.M. Shelat, V. Bhargava, G.K. Mitter, and C.A. Vaidialingam, dismissed three writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.

The amendment, which expanded the definition of "estate" under Article 31-A and added 44 laws to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, was enacted to shield various state agrarian reform laws, including the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (1953) and the Mysore Land Reforms Act (1962), from judicial scrutiny on grounds of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

The petitioners contended that the amendment was unconstitutional as it purported to abridge or take away fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 31, particularly the right to property, and that Parliament lacked the power to amend Part III of the Constitution in this manner. They argued that Article 368 only prescribed the procedure for amendment and did not confer substantive power, and that fundamental rights were beyond the reach of the amending power, either by explicit or implied limitations, including the doctrine of the "basic structure."

The States of Punjab and Mysore, supported by several interveners, countered that Article 368 conferred plenary constituent power on Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, subject to the prescribed procedure, and that the amendments were necessary to implement socio-economic reforms and agrarian revolution in India.

After a detailed examination, the Supreme Court ruled that:

1. The power to amend the Constitution is contained in Article 368 itself and is not merely procedural. The phrase "the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill" in Article 368 confers substantive power to amend any provision.

2. The process of constitutional amendment is a legislative process carried out by Parliament but is sui generis and distinct from ordinary legislation under Articles 245, 246, and 248.

3. The term "law" in Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making laws that abridge fundamental rights, does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368. Thus, amendments under Article 368 are not subject to invalidation merely because they abridge fundamental rights.

4. There are no implied limitations on the amending power under Article 368, and the Constitution does not expressly make any part, including Part III, unamendable. Parliament can amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, through the prescribed process.

5. The inclusion of state laws concerning land reforms in the Ninth Schedule through Article 31-B is a valid constitutional amendment aimed at validating those laws, not an ordinary law and not legislation with respect to land by Parliament.

6. The effect of the impugned amendment on the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is indirect and incidental and does not require the special ratification procedure under the proviso to Article 368.

7. Given the extensive reliance on the earlier decisions, especially Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), and the widespread implementation of agrarian reform laws over the past decades, the Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis and declined to overturn these precedents.

8. However, departing from the previous decisions, the Court held that from the date of this judgment, Parliament does not have the power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to abridge or take away fundamental rights. This ruling applies prospectively, preserving the validity of all past amendments, including the Seventeenth Amendment, but restricting future amendments to fundamental rights.

9. The Court articulated and applied the doctrine of prospective overruling in constitutional matters, recognizing the need to balance legal correctness with social stability and public interest, thereby preventing chaos arising from retrospective invalidation of long-standing laws and rights.

10. The Court emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution, the integrated and elastic scheme of Parts III and IV relating to fundamental rights and directive principles, and the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights as the "conscience of the Constitution."

This judgment represents a landmark in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, affirming the validity of past constitutional amendments that facilitated agrarian reforms while protecting the core fundamental rights against future parliamentary encroachment. It clarifies the scope of the amending power, the interpretation of Article 13(2) vis-à-vis Article 368, and underscores the judiciary's role in balancing constitutional fidelity with social progress.

Statutory provisions

Constitution of India Articles 13(2), 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 31, 31A, 31B, 32, 226, 245, 246, 248, 368; Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951; Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955; Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964

I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab", (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 109971