Can the Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, under Article 368? This question triggered a historic judicial struggle:
1. The Early Supremacy: Shankari Prasad (1951)
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court held that Parliament's power to amend under Article 368 is wide, and includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The word "law" in Article 13 only refers to ordinary legislative laws, not to constitutional amendments. This was confirmed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965).
2. The Transcendental Pivot: Golak Nath (1967)
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), an 11-judge bench, by a 6-5 majority, reversed its previous view. The Court held that Fundamental Rights are given a transcendental position and cannot be amended or taken away. Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are "laws" under Article 13, and are void if they conflict with Part III.
To bypass this, Parliament passed the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, modifying Article 13 and Article 368 to explicitly declare that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments.
3. The Ultimate Synthesis: Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a historic 13-judge bench reviewed the 24th Amendment. By a 7-6 majority, the Court upheld the amendment but formulated the Basic Structure Doctrine: