Question

In which one of the following cases the Supreme Court decided that, a constitutional amendment is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore if it violates any of the fundamental rights it may be declared void?

• A. Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan
• B. Keshvananda Bharati V. State of Kerala
• C. Indra Sawhney V. Union of India
• D. Golak Nath V. State of Punjab

Hint:

In the Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments could be challenged if they violate fundamental rights.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Question.
In the Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional amendments could be challenged in the court if they violated fundamental rights. The court held that a constitutional amendment is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2).
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (A) Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan: This case dealt with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution but did not specifically address the question of constitutional amendments violating fundamental rights.
- (B) Keshvananda Bharati V. State of Kerala: This case established the basic structure doctrine but did not deal with the issue of constitutional amendments violating fundamental rights.
- (C) Indra Sawhney V. Union of India: This case is related to reservations and not to the issue of constitutional amendments violating fundamental rights.
- (D) Golak Nath V. State of Punjab: This is the correct case that addressed the issue of constitutional amendments being challenged for violating fundamental rights.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the correct answer is (D) Golak Nath V. State of Punjab.