The amendment means the process of amending a law by the parliamentary or constitutional procedure. Article 368 of the constitution deals with the procedure of amendment. It is necessary that the constitution is growing, living, adaptable, flexible and changeable.

Harold Laski said that “law, like life, has its period of change and its period of conservation, it is not a closed system of eternal rules elevated above time and place. The respect it can win is measured by the justice it embodies and its power to embody ideals of justice depend upon its conscious effort to respond in an equal way to the widest demand it encounters”

Parliament was claiming that its power of amendment is absolute while the judiciary safeguarding the fundamental rights and limiting the power of amendment of the parliament.

The tussle is settled down by the court through the various judgements.

Case 1. SHANKARI PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIA, 1951

The first constitutional amendment act, 1951 declared valid by the apex court in this case. The court observed that article 368 of the constitution provides the power to amend the constitution including fundamental rights.

In article 13 clause 2 of the constitution, the word law means the ordinary law framed by the legislature under legislative power and it doesn’t include constitutional amendment made to the constitution.

CASE 2. SAJJAN SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 1965

The apex court held that article 386 empowers the parliament to amend any part of the constitution. Article 13 is limited to ordinary law not with constitutional amendment whereas article 368 of the constitution is limited to amendment laws.

Justice Mudholkar and Justice Hidayatulah gave the dissenting judgement out of the five-judge bench.

Justice Mudholkar said that the fundamental features of the constitution cannot be changed.

Justice Hidayaytulah believed that making no alteration in the basic structure of the Indian constitution.

The majority decision was in this case that parliament can amend the fundamental rights of the people.

CASE 3. GOLAK NATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1971

In this case, the supreme court overruled its previous decision given in Shankari prasad case, 1951 and Sajjan singh case,1965. In article 13 clause 2 the word law includes the constitutional amendment and ordinary law. Hence amendment in contravention of article 13 of the constitution will be declared void.

 After this decision parliament has no power to amend fundamental rights. This decision is made prospective in operation by the court.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?