Q. Consider the following statements regarding judicial interpretation regarding Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy:
1.In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court ruled that giving absolute precedence to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights would violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
2.In the Golaknath case, the Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Shankari Prasad and upheld the Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights for implementing Directive Principles.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
Answer: A
Notes:
Explanation:
- In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that giving unlimited precedence to DPSPs over FRs would destroy the Basic Structure, which includes harmony between FRs and DPSPs.
- In the Golaknath case (1967), the Court reversed its earlier Shankari Prasad judgment, and held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, even to implement DPSPs.
