SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 58

M.HIDAYATULLAH, V.BHARGAVA, V.RAMASWAMI, S.M.SIKRI, R.S.BACHAWAT, K.N.WANCHOO, J.M.SHELAT, J.C.SHAH, K.SUBBA RAO, G.L.MITTAL, C.A.VAIDIALINGAM
I. C. GOLAK NATH – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

SUBBA RAO, C. J. (ON BEHALF OF HIM-SELF. SHAH, SIKRI, SHELAT AND VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.);, J.

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and granddaughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on 30/07/1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated 22/01/1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9-1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act where under the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a direction that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, Constitut









































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Based on the provided list of case laws, the vast majority of the citations revolve around the landmark decision in *I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.* (AIR 1967 SC 1643), which is the primary subject of judicial discourse in the documents.

**PRAN NATH LEKHI VS UNION OF INDIA - 1976 0 Supreme(Del) 119, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala VS Ashok Kumar Sehgal - 1989 0 Supreme(P&H) 487, Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala VS Ashok Kumar Sehgal - 1989 0 Supreme(P&H) 495, Indira Nehru Gandhi, Raj Narain VS Raj Narain, Indira Nehru Gandhi - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 440, Ambika Prasad Mishra VS State Of U. P. - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 274, Waman Rao: Hanmantrao: Chandra Shekar: Vithalrao: Baburao Alias P. B. Samant VS Union Of India: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of Maharashtra: Union Of India - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 491, Raymond LTD. VS M. P. Electricity Board - 2000 8 Supreme 185, Leela Dineshsingh Chauhan VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 395: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab**

* **Explanation:** These entries explicitly state that *Golak Nath* was overruled by the thirteen-judge bench in *His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala* (AIR 1973 SC 1461). The entries note that while the judgment on the amendment power was overruled, the principle of "prospective overruling" established in *Golak Nath* was largely maintained or survived the overruling.

**Followed / Cited for Doctrine of Prospective Overruling:**

Many entries (BRINDAVAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS). - 1994 0 Supreme(Kar) 134, Sarwan Kumar VS Madan Lal Aggarwal - 2003 1 Supreme 946, Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited VS Union of India - 2013 0 Supreme(Sikk) 6, Ramavilas Tobacco Company rep. by its Partner V. Parthiban VS The Secretary Erode District Agricultural Marketing Committee Erode - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 499, T. C. Ramadoss VS Chief Manager & Authorised Officer State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch Red Cross Buildings - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 540, Indusind Bank Ltd. VS Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 581, SUNIL KUMAR VERMA VS STATE OF U. P. - 2017 0 Supreme(All) 1011) refer to *Golak Nath* as the origin point for the doctrine of "prospective overruling." These cases do not treat it as bad law in this specific functional context but cite it as the authoritative source for this judicial principle.

**Cited for Constitutional Interpretation and Fundamental Rights:**

A large number of entries (e.g., Bansi Ram Das VS Secretary to the Government of Assam Education (General) Department - 1968 0 Supreme(Gau) 58, State Of Kerala VS N. M. Thomas - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 362, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar VS State of Gujarat - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 677, ) refer to *Golak Nath* to discuss its majority views on Article 13(2), Article 368, and the amendability of fundamental rights. These citations serve as historical or comparative references to the debate regarding the basic structure of the Constitution.

**Cited as Settled/Relevant Law in Specific Contexts:**

Entries like State Bank of India VS Kuttappan - 1998 0 Supreme(Ker) 181, Brajesh Kumar Jain VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 0 Supreme(UK) 381, and Parmod Dada VS State of Punjab - 2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 148 rely on *Golak Nath* to define the scope of the Supreme Court's power to "mould relief" or to comment on the limited jurisdiction to apply prospective overruling specifically reserved for the Apex Court.

**Jagannath VS Authorised Officer, Land Reforms - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 544, T. Muralidhar Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 63, HEERA LAL UMAR VS STATE OF U. P. - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 357:**

* **Explanation:** These entries mention multiple cases (e.g., *Basheshar Nath*, *Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act* cases, *State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh*) in fragmented contexts. It is unclear from the snippets whether these specific cases are being distinguished, followed, or merely mentioned as part of a factual history. The lack of clear judicial verbs (e.g., "overruled," "relied upon") makes definitive categorization of their current standing difficult within this dataset.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top