Previous Year Question

The statement comes from I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court described Fundamental Rights as primordial/natural rights necessary for the development of human personality, observing that they enable an individual to shape his own life in the manner he considers best.

Golak Nath was decided by an 11-Judge Bench. The majority position at that time was that Parliament could not use its constitutional amending power to take away or abridge the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III. The decision therefore placed an important limitation on Parliament's amendment power as understood at that time.

The case is also important for the use of prospective overruling. Instead of invalidating earlier constitutional amendments retrospectively and unsettling the existing legal order, the ruling was applied prospectively.

The constitutional position subsequently changed. The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 expressly affirmed Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 to amend provisions of the Constitution and made Article 13 inapplicable to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.

Later, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament possesses a broad power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but it cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Thus, Golak Nath's conclusion on amendment power does not by itself represent the entire present legal position, while the statement asked in this question is specifically associated with the Golak Nath case.