Previous Year Question

1. Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India — 1951

The constitutional validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, was challenged in this case.

The central question was whether Parliament could modify Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court held that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 was not ordinary law within the meaning of Article 13(2).

Therefore, Parliament could also amend Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment.

This was an important early decision concerning the constitutional amending power.

2. Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan — 1965

The validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, was challenged in this case.

Following the principle established in the Shankari Prasad case, the Supreme Court recognised Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights under its constitutional amending power.

Questions concerning the limitations of the constitutional amending power also arose in this judgment.

An important fact is that the judgment was delivered on 30 October 1964, while it is commonly cited as AIR 1965 SC 845.

Therefore, it is generally studied as a 1965 case in examination chronology.

3. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab — 1967

In this case, an 11-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment by a majority of 6:5.

Departing from its earlier position, the Court held that Parliament could not abolish or abridge Fundamental Rights through a constitutional amendment.

The judgment examined the status of constitutional amendments under Article 13(2) and the limitations of Parliament's amending power.

The Court also applied the doctrine of Prospective Overruling, allowing the validity of earlier constitutional amendments to remain unaffected.

4. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala — 1973

The judgment in this case was delivered on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.

By a majority of 7:6, the Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.

According to this doctrine, Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot destroy or damage the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

The judgment did not accept the absolute restriction on amending Fundamental Rights established in the Golaknath case and instead imposed the limitation of the Basic Structure on the constitutional amending power.

Thus, the four cases demonstrate the development of judicial interpretation concerning the constitutional amending power.

Correct chronological sequence:

Shankari Prasad (1951) → Sajjan Singh (1965) → Golaknath (1967) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973)