Important Judgment for Judicial Services - amendability of Fundamanetal Rights
5th April 2020 By judicialcoaching

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India , [1952] SCR 89 (1951): This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment’s validity was challenged).

The SC Court held that the power conferred on Parliament by Art. 368 to amend is a very wide power and includes the power to take away the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III. , and  that in the context of Art. 13 (2), "law" must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the constitution made in the exercise of constituent power with the result that Art. 13(2) does not affect amendments made under Art. 368.

This view was reiterated in Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

The issues regarding power of the Parliament to amend Part III of the Constitution was re-examined in I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 <br>
The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law within the meaning of Art.13(2) of the Constitution of India, and  whether Fundamental Rights can be amended by the Parliament?
Overruling Sajjan Singh by a majority of six to five the Supreme Court held that amendment under Article 368 is “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2);
It further ruled that Legislature does not enjoy the power to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge fundamental rights .