Content deleted Content added
m v2.05 - Fix errors for CW project (Reference before punctuation) |
Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 46:
===''Golaknath'' case===
{{Main|I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in [[I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.|''Golaknath v. State of Punjab'']].<ref name = "Lok Sabha Secretariat"/> A bench of eleven judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the [[Fundamental Rights in India|Fundamental Rights]] provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void. Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void." The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" under the Constitution and are kept beyond the reach of Parliament. The Court also held that the scheme of the Constitution and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying, restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III. Parliament passed the 24th Amendment in 1971 to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling in the Golaknath case. It amended the Constitution to provide expressly that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights.<ref name = "Lok Sabha Secretariat"/> Chief Justice [[Koka Subba Rao]] writing for the majority held that:
* A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13.
| |||