In which one of the following cases the Supreme Court decided that, a constitutional amendment is a ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore if it violates any of the fundamental rights it may be declared void?
Explanation & Strategy
Click any section to expand · only one open at a time
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the SC by a 6:5 majority held that a constitutional amendment is 'law' within Article 13(2), so if it violates fundamental rights, it can be declared void. This was later effectively overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) which held amendments are valid unless they damage the basic structure.
Mobile browsers only show page 1 of a PDF in-panel.
Open in a new tab to read all pages.