Prepared by V. Satheesh Kumar, Sub Judge, Kerala Judiciary

1. Important Constitution amendments
● 24th amendment-1971
● Amendment of article 13
● Amendment of article 368

2. Background
The 24th Amendment was effected to abrogate the Supreme Court ruling
in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by
a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967.
The Court held that an amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, and
that an amendment under article 368 is "law" within the meaning of article 13 of the
Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a
Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution
are given a "transcendental position" under the Constitution and are kept beyond
the reach of Parliament. The Court further held that the scheme of the Constitution
and the nature of the freedoms it granted incapacitated Parliament from modifying,
restricting or impairing Fundamental Freedoms in Part III.
The judgment reversed the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Shankari Prasad vs Union of
India (AIR 1951 SC 455) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) which had upheld
Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to
Fundamental Rights.
The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
To abrogate the ruling, the government intended to amend article 368 to provide
expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution,
thereby bringing Fundamental Rights within the scope of its amending procedure

3. In the developing stage of law relating to the amendment of
Constitution, the total amending power was given by the Indian
Judiciary. But later this view was completely changed.
The question “Whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could
be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution” was raised in:
● Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952),
● Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965),
● Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab (1967)
● Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973)
In Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, it was held that the Constitutional amendments were
valid even if it abridges or takes any of the fundamental rights.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1965 AIR 845 ), by a majority of 3-2, the Supreme Court
held, "When article 368 confers on Parliament the right to amend the Constitution, the power in
question can be exercised over all the provisions of the Constitution.
In Golak Nath, the majority held that Article 368 lays down only the procedure to amend. The
power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament. Therefore the
amendment which curtails the Fundamental Rights is not valid.
In Kesavananda Bharati, the Golak Nath case was overruled. It was held that the
“basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional
amendment”. Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework
of the Constitution.

4. Article 13 of the original constitution
Stated that the state shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the
rights given to the citizens in Part III and any such law made in contravention of
this article shall be deemed void to the extent of contravention. Therefore, the
parliament cannot amend the constitution in a way that takes away the
fundamental rights of the citizens.
In the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, the Supreme Court tested this
concept.
It was challenged that Amendment ( an amendment to Article 31A and 31B) that
take away fundamental right of the citizens is not allowed by article 13. It was
argued that “State” includes parliament and “Law” includes Constitutional
Amendments.
It was held that ‘Law’ in Article 13 is ordinary law made under the legislative
powers. And therefore, the parliament has power to amend the constitution.
Article 31 of Indian Constitution gave the people of India the right to hold and dispose of their property as they see fit.
By the 1st Constitutional Amendment of 1951, the Parliament added Article 31a to the Indian Constitution. According to this, the government can acquire the
property of the people and by doing so, the fundamental rights mentioned in Article 14 and 19 of Indian Constitution shall not be violated.
Article 31b of Indian Constitution states that the provisions mentioned in Article 31a are immune from Indian judiciary and cannot be nulled on the basis that they
might violate the fundamental rights mentioned in Articles 14, 19 and 31 of Indian Constitution.

5. The full text of article 13, after the 24th Amendment, is given below
13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to
the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred
by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or
usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent
authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be
then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under
article 368.

6. The full text of article 368, after the 24th Amendment, is given
below:
368. Procedure for amendment of the Constitution. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and
procedure therefor.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend
by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid
down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in
either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership
of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and
voting, it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill it
shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon, the Constitution shall
stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in—
(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less
than one-half of the States specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule by resolutions to that effect
passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the
President for assent.
(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.

7. The full text of article 368, after the 24th Amendment, is given
below:
368. Procedure for amendment of the Constitution. Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and
procedure therefor.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its constituent power amend
by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid
down in this article.
(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill for the purpose in
either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House by a majority of the total membership
of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and
voting, it shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the Bill it
shall be presented to the President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon, the Constitution shall
stand amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in—
(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or
(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or
(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or
(d) the representation of States in Parliament, or
(e) the provisions of this article, the amendment shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less
than one-half of the States specified in Parts A and B of the First Schedule by resolutions to that effect
passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for such amendment is presented to the
President for assent.
(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.