Question

The question whether the Fundamental Rights can be amended under Art.368 came for consideration first time in

• A. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
• B. Keshavananda Bharati v. Union of India
• C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
• D. None of the above

Hint:

Memorize the timeline of the amendment power debate: 1. Shankari Prasad (1951): Parliament can amend anything. 2. Golak Nath (1967): Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights. 3. Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Parliament can amend anything, EXCEPT the "Basic Structure". (This is the final position).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question traces the history of the judicial interpretation of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, specifically concerning the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III. This has been one of the most contentious issues in Indian constitutional law, leading to a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The chronological evolution of the jurisprudence is as follows:
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): This was the first case where the amendability of Fundamental Rights was challenged. The challenge was against the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which curtailed the right to property. The Supreme Court upheld the Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. It held that the word "law" in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislative laws and not to constitutional amendment acts passed under Article 368.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): The Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in \textit{Shankari Prasad}.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): In a major reversal, the Supreme Court, by a 6:5 majority, held that Fundamental Rights are "transcendental and immutable" and that Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. It held that an amendment under Article 368 is a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973): Overruling \textit{Golak Nath}, the Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter the "basic structure" or framework of the Constitution. This is the current legal position.
Since the question asks when the issue came up for consideration for the first time, the correct answer is \textit{Shankari Prasad v. Union of India}.