Fundamental Rights

a) Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)

1.  The SC asserted that the Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
2.  It said that a constitutional amendment act enacted to abridge or take away the fundamental rights is not void of article 13(2).

b) Sajjan Singh case (1965)

•  In this case SC held that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights.

c) Golaknath case (1967)

•  In this case, SC reversed its earlier stance that the Fundamental Rights can be amended.
•  It held that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.
•  Article 368 gives the procedure to amend but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. It conferred upon Fundamental Rights a transcendental position.