PPT Golaknath

April 5, 2018 | Author: Abhishek Agarwal | Category: Common Law, Crime & Justice, Justice, Public Law, Constitutional Law


Comments



Description

I.C. Golaknath V/s.State of Punjab 1965 Abhishek Agarwal Nirmal Tom 1 Subba Rao 2 .Basic Details  Date of Judgment: 27/02/1967   Presented in: Supreme Court of India Appellant: I. Golaknath  Respondent: State of Punjab  Case Opinion by: K.C. Who is Golaknath??  Henry & William Golaknath were the property holders of 500 Acres of farmland in Jalandhar. and rest were declared ‘Surplus’ and was acquired by state government. 3 . Punjab  They were allowed to hold only 30 Acres of land each. Claims by Golaknath Family  We are denied of our Fundamental Right ‘to acquire and hold property’  They filed a petition under Art-32 of Indian Constitution 4 . Acts under Question:  Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1962 Constitution of India: ◦ 9th Schedule ◦ Seventeenth Amendment Act. 1964 5 . 1953   Mysore Land Reforms Act. Questions need to be answered 1. Whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not? 6 . Whether Amendment is a “law” under the meaning of Article 13(2)? 2. Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend by way of addition.State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights  368. 7 . (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution. variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.Articles involved (1)  13(2). (1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List. Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India.Articles involved (1I)  245. and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. 8  . (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution. 248. 9 . or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14.acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights shall not be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with. article 19 or article 31.Articles involved (I1I)  31(A). 1964 SC Said: Article 368 carries the power to amend all parts of the Constitution including the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. 10 .Past Cases Referred (1)   Shankari Prasad Singh v/s.1951 Sajjan Singh v/s. An amendment is not 'law' for the purpose of Art. State of Rajasthan. Union of India. 13(2) and cannot be tested under that Article. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1959  Ujjam Bai v. Gopalan v. Champakam Dorairajan. S. 11 . Shri Sri Krishna Sinha. Smt.Past Cases Referred (1I) A. 1950  State of Madras v. M. Sharma v. 1963  SC Said:  If it is the duty of Parliament to enforce directive principles it is equally its duty to enforce them without infringing the fundamental rights. 1951  Pandit M. State of Madras. K. their effect on the social and economic affairs of the country and the chaotic situation that may be brought about by the sudden withdrawal at this stage of the amendments from the Constitution it was undesirable to give retroactivity of this decision. Overruling. The present was therefore a fit case for the application of the doctrine of "prospective. inasmuch as it takes away or abridges fundamental rights was beyond 'the amending power of Parliament and void because of contravention of Art. 13(2). But having regard to the history of this and earlier amendment to the Constitution.Past Cases Referred (III)  Cases in the courts of USA SC Said: The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act. evolved by the courts in the United States of America. 12 . 1964. Doctrine of ‘Prospective Overruling’  It does not do away with the doctrine of state decision but confines it to past transactions. 'involves the making of law. that the court really does is to declare the law but refuse to give retroactivity to it” 13  It . Parliament cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. 14 .Past Cases Referred (IV)  Garnishee Case SC Said: Article 368 cannot directly be amended by Parliament to confer power on itself over the fundamental rights. 13(2). It would be against Art. Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure. 15  .Final Judgment  A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13. Therefore.   The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament. amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed. THANK YOU 16 .
Copyright © 2020 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.