Q. Consider the following statements with reference to the amendability of Fundamental Rights in India:
1. Presently, the Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Fundamental Rights in India.
2. In the Golaknath Case (1967), the Supreme Court had held that the parliament does not have power to amend Fundamental Rights.
3. In the Minerva Mills Case, the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 can be amended to give effect to directive principles.
How many of the above given statements is/ are correct?
Exp) Option b is the correct answer.
Statement 1 is incorrect: In Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), Supreme Court held that the Parliament could amend the fundamental rights without altering the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. Thus, the parliament does not have unlimited power to amend the constitution.
Statement 2 is correct: In the Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that parliamentary powers under Article 368 were not absolute, and that the Parliament cannot abridge fundamental rights as they are included under Part III.
Statement 3 is correct: Supreme Court, in Minerva Mills Case, upheld the validity of Article 31 C. According to Article 31C, a law that seeks to implement any or all of the directive principles of Part IV shall not be deemed invalid just because it violates a citizen’s fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before the law) or Article 19. Hence, fundamental rights can be amended to give effect to directive principles.
