Multiple choice

The Supreme Court in a number of cases held that the Parliament, by exercising its amending power under Art 368, can amend even Part III. Which of the following choices confirms the same ruling?

  1. Shankari Prasad vs Union of India
  2. Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan
  3. Golaknath vs State of Punjab
  4. Keshvanada vs State of Kerala

  1. Only 1 and 4

  2. Only 1 and 2

  3. Only 1, 2 and 4

  4. Only 1, 3 and 4
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Shankari Prasad vs Union of India case (1952) and Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965) ruling, the Supreme Court explicitly gave the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Hence, both these cases should be there in the correct option.

In Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, Fundamental Rights were given a ‘Transcendental Position’, whereby no authority including the Parliament was competent to amend the Constitution. Hence, it should not be in the correct choice.

Now the trap is Keshvanada vs State of Kerala case. A student may keep in his mind the idea of ‘basic structure’ that was propounded by this ruling, and may commit a mistake. But, we need to understand that this ruling didn’t disallow the Parliament to amend the Constitution. It only ruled out that, “Nothing that infringes the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution can be amended”. Thus, option (2) is wrong and option (3) is the correct choice.

Keep practicing — related questions