India

Golaknath case 1967: Judgement who showed that Constitution is more than Parliament

Golaknath case 1967: Judgement who showed that Constitution is more than Parliament
Written by Abhishek Lohia

In Golaknath case 1967, the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision and said that Parliament has no right to amend the sections of the Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court also said that it is the duty of the State to implement the policy directional elements of the state but it can not be done by making changes in fundamental rights. Mrs Gandhi saw this decision as a barrier in its attempts to gain complete political control.

In July 1969 i.e. two years five months after Golaknath Case, Mrs Gandhi nationalized 14 banks under her political aggression. This decision was immediately challenged and within seven months, the Supreme Court declared this decision as unconstitutional. A few months later, the government announced the termination of the privy purse given to the statemen, but in December, 1970, the Supreme Court also announced it as a wrong decision.

By concluding that the people have been favoring her decision, Mrs. Gandhi dissolved the Indian Parliament and declared the country’s first mid-term election in March 1971. In this election, she may have given a heavy defeat to the general body, but she was still teetering with the three judgments of the judiciary.

Indira Gandhi, one of the most influential people of the Constitution, had proposed a number of constitutional amendments after one, whose motive was to give the government unlimited power to limit, change or completely eliminate fundamental rights.

The proposed three constitution amendment bills- the first of 24th, 25th, and 26th, was to repeal the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Golaknath and to make the order of judiciary ineffective in the case of nationalization of the remaining two banks and in the case of the previpers. Under Article 24 of the Constitution amended, Article 13 and 368 were amended. Article 13 was amended so that it does not apply to Article 368. And the revised form of Article 368 gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution in India.

Through these amendments, the government removed the barriers generated by the three decisions that created the problem. But Mrs. Gandhi’s fight with the judiciary did not end here. The head of a monastery in Kerala challenged the order of the state government, through which its right to manage the property of the institution was limited.

About the author

Abhishek Lohia

Abhishek Lohia is a Sports and Political Writer at Newsfolo. He has been working as a Journalist for 2 years and has previously worked at Sportsflu, Sportscafe, and some other Digital Channels. He covers the ruling BJP Government, civic bodies, and Indian politics. He also covers latest Sports News and Live Coverage. He is a graduate in Electrical Engineering from IPEC College, Sahibabad. He can be reached at; [email protected], you can also follow him on twitter @chiraglohia2

Leave a Comment