The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments was that no part of the Constitution was unamendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. In ''Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India'',<ref>''Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India'' (AIR. 1951 SC 458),</ref> the Supreme Court unanimously held, "The terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever. In the context of article 13, "law" must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power, with the result that article 13 (2) does not affect amendments made under article 368. In ''Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan'',<ref>''Sajjan ([[caseSingh citation]]:v. State of Rajasthan'' 1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933),</ref> by a majority of 3–2, the Supreme Court held, "When article 368 confers on Parliament the right to amend the Constitution, the power in question can be exercised over all the provisions of the Constitution. It would be unreasonable to hold that the word "Law" in article 13 (2) takes in Constitution Amendment Acts passed under article 368."<ref name="Lok Sabha Secretariat">{{cite web|title=Constitution Amendment: Nature and Scope of the Amending Process|url=http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf|work=Lok Sabha Secretariat|access-date=1 December 2013|pages=14–20|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013055/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf|archive-date=3 December 2013}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> In both cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368.
